Relationship for cadenzas

While adding a recording of Beethoven’s 4th piano concerto op. 58, I notice this work (and part 1 & 3) has a few relationships to cadenzas in the form: “is the basis for”
→ Like in is the basis for Work “Cadenza to Beethoven’s Piano Concerto no. 4: I. Allegro moderato” - MusicBrainz

To me this sounds like a strange relationship, as a cadenza is not (necessarily) “based on” the work it is written/improvised for. It’s a freeform addition/intermezzo within the piece. It might be based on a proposed cadenza of the composer, but not necessarily.

I wonder, wouldn’t it be better to introduce a specific relationships, especially for a cadenzas?

So we will have instead, for example: is a cadenza for Work “Concerto for Piano and Orchestra no. 4 in G major, op. 58: III. Rondo. Vivace” - MusicBrainz

That way, cadenzas will also show as a separate list from works which are actually based on a certain composition.

(?I have no idea why sometimes an url appears, and sometimes the name of the work in my post here…?)


Hello. Yes, I think it’s a good idea to create a dedicated relationship. It is legitimate to consider the cadenza a separate work, but the relationship would be much better if it’s “is a cadenza of” rather than “is based on”.

1 Like

Related discussion: Relationship for Cadenza? - #7 by MetaTunes

I agree that it would be nice if there was a clearer way to annotate this.

1 Like