'part of' relationship for recordings?


#1

Here are two releases containing the same recording of Tristan (Furtwängler, 1952):

I would like to merge the recordings on these releases. The problem is that some sections of the music have been split up differently. For example, tracks 2, 3 and 4 on the first release correspond to track 2 on the second.

Do we have a way to express this? A ‘part-of’ relationship for recordings (with ordering) would seem the ideal solution.


#2

There is the “compilation of/compiled in” relationship. It’s my understanding said relationship is meant for cases like what you’re describing (or at least, I’ve used it for such in the past).


#3

Thanks, that looks good.


#4

All that’s missing from the ‘compiled in’ relationship is a ‘partial’ attribute, to say that one recording is partially (but not completely) contained in another. There are unfortunately some cases where non-alignment of boundaries means that ‘compiled in’ can’t completely capture the situation. For example, tracks 11-15 of release 1 versus tracks 7-9 of release 2.

I haven’t done much with opera so I don’t know how common this situation is. I could, I suppose, create a standalone recording covering both sequences and relate both to that…


#5

This issue is quite common for opera recordings, I had the same question at this thread.

I don’t like “compilation of”, as the intention behind seems to be something different and the implementation as recording-recording relationship feels conceptually flawed to me (see the linked thread).I’m using “edit of” for those situations, but really I would prefer a dedicated “part of” relationship.

For that more complicated situation that two recordings overlap, but none is part of the other, a new “overlaps” recording-recording relationship would be great.


#6

Thanks, I didn’t realize this had been discussed before. I agree that ‘part of’ makes more sense as a name than ‘compiled in’ (which suggests that someone took a bunch of disparate recordings and glued them together) – assuming they are logically synonymous.


#7

On reflection, a better solution is to do the opposite: create standalone recordings for the ‘atomic’ sections, from which all tracks on both releases can be constructed exactly. For example:

Release 1: |-a-|--------b-----------|------c------|
Release 2: |------d-------|-----------e-----------|
New recs: -----|----x-----|----y----|

Then add ‘compilation’ relations for b = x+y, d=a+x and e=y+c.

The advantage of this approach is that every ‘compilation’ ends up being unique and complete.

Any objections?


#8

I don’t think it’s worth the bother, really. For opera recordings, I think it would be better to create one recording for the whole opera, then use ‘part of’ relationships to link this recording to all the various track divisions.


#9

Well, I just went ahead and did it for those two releases. A script for this, something like ‘mass merge recordings’ on steroids, would be very useful – I don’t think I’ll be doing it again manually in a hurry.