The Classical Editor Toolbox

That’s an impressive guide, @reosarevok. :bowing_man:

2 Likes

Great post @reosarevok

I just want to add examples of releases following the style guidelines. This one also has a lot a additional information in relationships:

You can check the release artist, track artists, recording artists… they follow what reo wrote above. Note also the recording date on the “piano”, “recorded at”, “recording of” relations are different on the two CDs… (two different recordings of the same work)

The next one shows a group as recording artist (Alban Berg Quartet) and relationships to the individual instrumentists (violinist, cellist, etc.):

2 Likes

One more label/database site: Naxos Music Library has a 15 minutes free access (per day) and often has high-resolution covers / booklets available for a lot of different labels

3 Likes

Also Linn Records is providing full booklets of their releases.

2 Likes

I bookmarked this page :smiley:

I wish I had know how to ask. I wanted to ask so many times, but I didn’t know where to turn. I left notes on the comment fields of my edits and hoped that someone, sometime, would read them.

Where does one ask? On the forum, when you’re asking about a release you’re working on?

2 Likes

Thanks for the post - only just come across it!
I suggest the following additions:
Don’t forget to see if an acoustic id exists - useful for merges and seeing how others have attributed artists - needs to be used with a bit if thought though.
Having a good MB series reflecting the composers catalogue is a good way to get at the works, as suggested IMSLP is a good start.
If one reads music, the scores at IMSLP are an excellent way of resolving ambiguous track titles!

When reviewing recordings to “clean up”, and there is no artist or work assigned, the recording artist is given the value [Unknown]. Should the work be left blank on the basis that with the information available it is unclear whether it is the main work or an arrangement?
I have come across many tracks, typically on compilations, where the main work has been assigned, but subsequent investigation identifying the RA has shown the work be an arrangement.

I would prefer us to link to something. Which of the two is actually a good question though. I’d generally go for the default unless I have a reason to suspect it’s an arrangement (like, the release is called “the best of the guitar” for a piano piece). But I can see both options and both are better than nothing IMO.

1 Like

Thank you, thank you, **Thank you**!!!:smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

A post was split to a new topic: Not getting relationships on Picard

A post was split to a new topic: Using subwork order in a release to order them in the work

Filing classical music? Why is this so complicated??? We need a genius to make this more workable.

My first post here and I am trying to ask a question about the Classical Music Style guide and the Classical Editor Toolbox.

My interest is particularly in opera where for me the performer for each track is important as it is not always easy to distinguish between different singers and with several recordings of the same work I may wish to check from my control point who is actually singing.

MusicBrainz (MB) still insists on referring to the composer as the artist even in Classical works and I have to accept that, but for the Track Artist I require the singer who I understand should be referred to as the Performer here.

MB frequently gives the names of the principal voices, usually named on the album cover, but in an opera all soloists’ names are needed even for minor parts.

There is not much information on this that I have seen yet so I am posting to ask for some help with how to do this most efficiently.

As a supplementary question, all my CD booklets are in store. I refer to these and the libretto text to find the performer details for each track. Is there any way to find this info other than digging in my store container?

Any guidance and assistance would be appreciated.

Hello, @Budgie2 . Welcome to the forums!

You ask a good question. It will perhaps get more and better attention if you create a new topic instead of adding your question to this topic. Give your new topic a descriptive title, like “Include Singer as Track Artst for Opera?”. Put it in the category “MusicBrainz Style”.

Actually, you ask two good questions. Your “supplementary question” about finding performer details for each track deserves its own topic, with its own title. That question is probably better in the category “MusicBrainz Classical” or “MusicBrainz”, rather than “MusicBrainz Style”.

Hi Jim,
Many thanks for your constructive and helpful reply.

I have done as you suggest so hopefully I should get some help with this.

Regards,
Budgie2

1 Like

Hello Budgie2,

this is possible by using the “Edit relationships” tab. You can enter the relationship type (probably “vocals”), the Artist name, and the type of vocal, i.e. Tenor, soprano, etc. I always put the role filled in the “credited as” box next to the type of vocal.

This works and nobody is complaining. It is somewhat cryptic and the information is usually available somewhere.

Have a look at the relationships of one of my recent submissions.

Regards,

Hollander

I made some additional edits on Hollanders “Orfeo” example above, notably to make sure performers only show on the Tracks/Recordings where they actually perform :slight_smile:
After having added the (vocal, orchestra, conductor) relationships, there’s a nice script that automatically adds them to the Recording Artist credits GitHub - loujine/musicbrainz-scripts: Collection of greasemonkey scripts for MusicBrainz

I have obviously never really paid attention to the recording artist field. I thought creating the relationships for the singers only where they actually participate solved the problem of them “showing up” only at the tracks they actually perform .

What is still missing is a concise step by step guide how to enter classical musci data so it turns out in the generally accepted way. (or am I just missing it?)

1 Like

Hi and many thanks for the replies. I have been so pleased to learn that others have gone before me and are clearly much more knowledgeable and achieving what I had hoped. I am still very much a beginner here.

I am not a coder and chabreyflint’s link is hard work for me but clearly this is the direction I need to go. So much reading!!!

I shall return when I have absorbed a bit more
Many thanks again.
Budge