Levels in the structure of works

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f82073e4d20>

I would expect to just use “part of” for everything which isn’t really anything of the others, yes (and I’d expect it to be used quite often). More options can always be added in the future if we see a need.

It was suggested earlier that the Ring Cycle operas should be a “collection” type rather than “movements”, or perhaps both at once?

I added the attributes I listed in my first message today (without link phrases for now, because orderable rels ignore them at the moment anyway):

Of course, it seems that broke something again, since I can’t load every relationship editor for works now. But I have @yvanzo on the case.

@MetaTunes: see https://musicbrainz.org/ws/2/work/46a310aa-ac03-4a96-868c-f2f23254d4cf?inc=aliases+work-rels for an example of how it looks now :slight_smile: (I’ve also asked @yvanzo to change the ws to have an XML attribute with the ID of the relationship attribute like we have for relationship types right now)

1 Like

It looks great! Is there any way to see a full work (like the Sylvia one) on a single page? A “flat” version of all the parts/movements/numbers…

Editing works to use this would be a lot easier if we could set an attribute for all child works with one click.

I fully expect something for that from @loujin pretty fast once he tries to edit this stuff :wink:

Looks good. Next week I’ll take a look at incorporating an option into Picard “Classical Extras” plugin to take advantage of this. The new version of the plugin will also cater for multiple parents, partial recordings, medleys and arrangements, as well as reading saved file tags and allowing saved options to be used when re-tagging.

Great, although Number doesnt really mean anything couldn’t we use Scene instead

Scenes and numbers are completely different things. Scenes might change several times during a single number. For ballet we might consider having a scene attribute. For opera we typically shouldn’t even have scene works (as explained on the guidelines).

1 Like

I agree that “scene” doesn’t work, but I’m not sure what to make of “number” either. Movement and collection add information, but I don’t see what would be the difference between “number” and an un-typed part-of relationship.

If something is a number we know that it’s typically part of stage work (theatre, opera, or oratorio…).

Not all parts of a work with numbers are numbers, too. See the Mozart Singspiel I shared earlier where the sung sections are numbers but the others aren’t.

Hmm. Leaving aside that an oratorio is not a stage work, wouldn’t it be better to use work type to say if a work was an opera etc.? “Number” is not an accepted term for musical parts of an opera or oratorio AFAIK. Typically such parts might be preludes, overtures, arias, recitatives, choruses, finales or just plain (instrumental) movements. For a “musical”, “number” might have a specific meaning (similar to aria) and my understanding is that it is this usage that has been borrowed for the new scheme for classical works. In other words, only arias etc. would be “numbers”, not recitatives or spoken sections. Given the potential for confusion, I think some style guidelines would be needed for this. Also, should the part types I have listed above be applied in some way - but as work type or relationship attribute?
Finally, oratorios tend to have Parts rather than Acts, so perhaps that should be a specific relationship attribute?

True, even though sometimes staged by definition it isn’t a stage work.

Recitatives are music and by definition these can be also numbers (even though composers often haven’t numbered recitatives).

Work type defines the type of work but the attribute defines the type of part (or type of relation).

I’m pretty sure there’s no specific name for oratorio parts so this seems unnecessary.

Also

Ok, I take the point that “number” can have a specific meaning in a classical context as well as in musicals, but (perhaps mistakenly) I had inferred that it was being used in a more general sense. Either way, I think some clarification/guidance on its use would be helpful.

There’s a description for each attribute, visible on the relationship page. I’m quite open to improvements on the description texts :slight_smile:

1 Like

That looks pretty clear, thanks.

You know me too well reo :wink:

I updated my “edit subworks names from main work edit page” script (greasyfork, bitbucket): you can now use it to add/remove attributes (act, movement and so on) on all subworks at once. As usual, ping me if something’s not working

3 Likes

Apologies for not replying earlier - I seem to have missed some of the discussion. I agree with the structure proposed.
Suggest that “Collection” here is used to denote works which are related either by the composer (Wagner’s Ring Cycle), or by being frequently recorded/performed together (Bach’s Well Tempered Klavier Book 1).
IMO the use of this “Collection” relationship versus the Work/Series relationship needs clarification. Perhaps the latter should be reserved for Opus (Bach BWV series) and Published (Bach Anna Magdalene Notebook) collections, and renamed “Catalogued in” and “Published in”. I know that there will still be some anomalies, but it might help clear the fog.