I think it’s true for Russians in general that they don’t use their second name (unless there’s a possible confusion with someone else). It would be nice to have some confirmation on this by a native Russian speaker though.
I generally agree with you, except for the aliases for languages using the Latin alphabet. Russian (and in fact most non-Latin scripts) are transliterated differently depending on the language, because one of the reasons for transliterating something is allowing speakers of the language to pronounce the word or name right. Maybe a “generic transliteration in Latin script” language could be added for this case, or there could be two separate attributes for aliases: one for script and one for language.
You’re right, this was a hasty generalisation.
“Tchaikovsky” should be the latin transliteration only for languages where this transliteration is acceptable. This would include English, German, French, Italian (based on Wikipedia pages). However it seems that for Spanish the transliteration would be Chaikovski, Portugues Tchaikovski.
Actually there is a different transliteration for each of these languages: Tchaïkovski or Tchaïkovsky for French (notice the diaeresis), Tschaikowski for German, Čajkovskij for Italian (what is that caron doing in Italian?!) etc. Of course various labels have their own preferences and may use the English transliteration even for releases in another language.
Indeed, what I meant is that when there are several possible transliteration, we should default to “Tchaïkovsky” or the closest transliteration (e.g. Tschaikowsky in German, Tchaikovsky in Italian, etc.)
And it seems that the diaresis was used originally, e.g. Manfred or Mazeppa
Russian names consists of 3 parts: personal name, patronymic and family name. A patronymic is different from a middle name used in English: it is not a second personal name, but is a part of a name derived from father’s name.
Using a patronymic is a matter of respect and politeness. Addressing somebody just by a personal name is considered to be impolite, with exceptions such as close friends, family members etc. Using a patronymic as a part of a name is a standard, official, default way of addressing a person; a Wikipedia article gives more details. In the modern Russian rules are relaxing a bit, and for modern composers and performers it may be appropriate to skip the patronymic, but not for a XIX century composer. Using just “Пётр Чайковский” sounds weird for me as a native speaker, even if his works were published under a name “П. Чайковский” in his lifetime.
Most Russian classical composers and performers exist with full name (that is, with the patronymic) in the MB database: Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Glinka just to give a few examples. Tchaikovsky shall be “Пётр Ильич Чайковский”.
My understanding is that they use the patronymic in Russia, but drop it in International usage. So I don’t think it should be dropped. I also don’t agree with just using the initial letter, even if that is what appears on manuscripts.
True. But can we start by making the obvious changes rather than possibly contentious ones? Where the MB name is the one in common international usage, but is not the legal or original language name, I would prefer to leave it like that for now. I would like to be confident about the rules and application of aliases before we change commonly-understood names (in the classical music world) to ones which most people might consider obscure.
Thanks for this information.
My suggestion was therefore not a good option
It’s better to keep the name that way. We could probably add this to guidelines, so that the debate is not raised again.
People who insist on calling Chopin only French or only Polish are applying XX Century thinking to XIX Century where nationality was much less defined and fluid. I think he was both. Born and raised in Poland to French immigrant father and Polish mother. Educated both in French and Polish. He was cosmopolitan enough to speak French in daily life and spend most of his life in France , at the same time his music is directly connected to Polish folklore and he responded very passionately to Polish Uprising against Russian Empire. We can say he was born in Poland (although country legally did not exists at the time, it was under Russia) and died in France, but calling him either only Polish or only French somehow diminishes him.
The whole nationality discussion of prominent people is always charged and misguided, as belonging to the same nation somehow makes one better as an individual. It always bothered me.
I also think that he should be listed under Frédéric Chopin and have ample aliases in relevant languages, including Polish and French.
There has been an uptick in edits removing patronymics from major Russian composers from the same editor (who appears to speak or at least edit Russian artists a lot, I don’t speak the language). I started reverting them since long-time consensus seems to be to list patronymics for Russian composers.
I would like some input from Russian speakers, but I think the way the edits have been done, without prior community consensus and with barely any votes/discussion (some of the most prolific composers by number of releases in the database have had patronymics in the main name for very long) is not a good approach. Especially since discussion in this thread seems to argue to include patronymics.
It would be good to get a definitive policy on this. I voted ‘No’ on a few, but then realized how many are open, so I thought it would be good to draw attention to it.
While I wouldn’t oppose the removal of the patronymic for latin transcriptions (where – with the exception of Tchaikovsky – they are only rarely used) I don’t think the removal is a good idea for original cyrillic, where it’s obviously a part of the current name (see: Vladimir Pukhalsky - Wikidata)
I see a difference with an artist name including patronymics on non-recording artists (composers, authors) and recording artists. I don’t think it should be on say, a pop singer who uses their legal name without a patronymic on all releases.
Fully agree, the key driving principle is to reflect the name used by the artist on releases. If they release their work in russian with their patronymic, MB should use this as their primary name.
Aliases are there for translation or transliteration in other languages. Aliases may drop the patronymic if the artist doesn’t use it for releases in the alias language.
I think it makes sense for the name to be the most common in real life usage - I’m not Russian, so I don’t know how common it is to use the patronymic in real life. That’s a discussion Russian editors should be active in.
I think “most common in real life usage” is too vague to be useful. You can’t really consult how someone is credited on releases for the main name, otherwise all composers would have a Latin alphabet name.
I think the best for composers, especially ones that lived 100+ years ago, would be to stick to encyclopedias or library headings as the official name. Since we want an official formal name for all entities, not the most common one. “J.S. Bach” is arguably more common than “Johann Sebastian Bach” in real life usage, for example, yet I don’t think that change would be popular here since it’s not a formal name used in encyclopedias etc.
Let me get a little philosophical here. It is convenient for databases if things have only one name. So it is common for database designers to insist that a human be represented in a database by exactly one name, preferably one which is different from the name of any other person in that database.
But humans have multiple names. Names can differ depending on relationship: my spouse names me “honey”, but the attorney names me “Mr DeLaHunt”. Names can differ depending on context: people in Poland might name that composer Fryderyk, while people in 19th century France might name him Frédéric. Names can differ depending on writing script, as well as language: Чайковский is conventionally written in Latin script as Tchaikovsky by English-writers but Tschaikowski by German-writers (and there are many more).
The thrust of this thread has been to find consensus on “the name” to use for an artist, meaning, one name. I would say, instead, let’s store all of them. And crucially, when someone wants to read “the name” of the composer, let’s find a way to give the reader their preferred one of the many names. The language and script which the reader prefers will be a strong clue as to which of a composer’s names they might prefer.
Fortunately, MusicBrainz has sort of a method for handling the multiplicity of human names: the Alias field. It wasn’t quite designed for the purpose, and it isn’t used everywhere, but it partially meets the need.
So I suggest that we consider, not just, what text to put in the Name field for a composer, but also, what aliases to fill in for that person. And, in arguing which rule is best for selecting which of a composer’s names to put in the name field, perhaps be clear about what use or situation is motivating that choice.
Yeah, I agree, but if for example Russians say “most Russian composers are only mentioned by their patronymic in an encyclopedia index”, then that’s a good sign that maybe we should just store that as a legal name alias but not as the main artist name For example, I’ve seen that the Russian wikipedia usually has the name as “Surname, Name Patronymic”, but the sidebar with the person’s info will just have “Name Surname” - suggesting to me that this is probably the most common way of doing this in Russian.
Absolutely! The newly expanded alias guidelines might help there (or maybe they’ll make things even more confusing, but we should in any case take them into consideration for this).
Most libraries seem to use patronymics for their headings, not just Russian ones. VIAF / VIAF example. Headings of encyclopedias and libraries are often the common usage. See for example an author best known with their abbreviated name: VIAF.
I think an encyclopedia index name or library heading and the main name for a composer/author here shares the same basic idea, so I don’t see the problem with using them as a reference point.
