The track is labeled “Beethoven: Minuet in G”. You’d think that’d be Minuet in G major, WoO 10, no. 2. But listening to the track makes it very clear: it’s not. Nor is it any of the other minuets in WoO 10. Nor is it Bach’s Minuet in G. Or any other composer’s Minuet in G. Its…
Just asking here because I’m not really sure. I mean, if it were a punctuation or spelling error, it’d be a no-brainer—but I’m putting something on the track listing that’s completely different than what’s on the album.
And, second, if it’s not OK to correct it—how is this supposed to be handled? If the track title isn’t corrected, there doesn’t seem to be a way to tag it correctly (because you can’t in general use works, e.g., due to operas having 10 tracks which are all a partial recording of Act II.)
If you’re absolutely certain from listening, correcting the track and recording title is definitely the way to go. But please mention this in an annotation as well (on the release and the recording). This will confuse a lot of users and some might even try to “correct” it back again.
Well, it’s Tempo di menuetto (minuet) from a Sonata in G, so… it’s technically a minuet in G. The track name is confusing, but I think this is one case where I’d just link to the proper work, leave an annotation, and not change the track title (maybe the recording title though?). That said, I’m not going to vote against the edit either, it’s probably fine.
I would not like the track to be renamed (the recording is another matter entirely). Even misspellings I’d probably enter as-is.
An annotation on the release describing the issue wouldn’t go amiss either.
Hopefully alternate track lists are coming soon, then (I think?) It’d be possible to have one alternate which is literally what’s on the back/in the book/etc., every typo included. (Or even the non-alternate listing could be that, but having it be an alternate that someone who cares about it matching perfectly creates probably makes it more likely to be correct.)
Doesn’t that mean it’s played at the same speed as a minuet, and that’s technically (at least!) different than actually being a minuet.
Mostly, though, I’m just annoyed trying to link that track credit to a work took several hours of “I know I’ve heard that before, what is it‽” and trying tons of videos on YouTube, tracks on Google Music, etc. Ultimately didn’t work, because no one else has ever called it “Minuet in G”. I’ve heard the first few bars of various other Minuets in G (mainly WoO 10 and Bach’s) enough for a lifetime now, though!
Thinking about it more, though, I think something like “Sonata for Piano no. 20 in G major, op. 49 no. 2: II. Tempo di menuetto (credited as Minuet in G)” would work. Does that sound better to everyone? I’ll happily cancel the edit and change it.
I would err on the side of caution and keep it as printed, in this case. It’s not clearly a mistake just an unusual way to refer to this piece, IMO. The relationship to the work makes it clear what it actually is, and correcting the recording title should also help (your edit #39939612 which seems entirely correct).
You could also add a recording alias so that both names will up in searches.
The consensus here seems to be not to correct the album track listing, so I’ve gone ahead and canceled http://musicbrainz.org/edit/39939613. I’ve left the recording name edit, which it appears to also be the consensus.
For now, I’ll just correct it on the file’s tags in Picard—not really ideal to have one track in the whole collection that needs that (and every time I have Picard update the tags, etc.), but I presume once alternate track lists are live, it’ll be OK to add one for the “corrected”/more normal naming?
Currently, though, I don’t see any other way to put it in to MusicBrain. Doesn’t seem like a pseudo-release is really appropriate for it, as it’s not a translation/transliteration. As hilarious as it would be to enter one for a classical release changing “allegro” to “fast” and calling it an English translation
PS: Noticed it calls Mozart’s Rondo alla Turca “Rondo all Turca”, seems that’s at least OK to correct.
You’d think so, but the problem is they seem to get their data feed from the same label that messed up the track listing—so they get the weird listing, too.
That makes things more difficult.
In theory SoundHound should be able to ID the audio as being a performance of a specific work. But in practice many report failure espec. with classical. Perhaps due to a too sparse database?
But no, people keep writing Angus for Agnus in classical releases (the image is unrelated to music AFAIK, just a Google search)