I come across many works that use the composition from another work but with language in another language. Which of based on and translated version of should I use in the following situations:
Work B has same composition of Work A, but with lyrics in another language that has no similarity in content whatsoever with the lyrics of Work A.
Work B has same composition of Work A, but with lyrics in another language that is roughly about the same thing (e.g. both works being love songs).
Partial translations: Same with situation 2, but with certain parts of Work B’s lyrics (like the chorus) unaltered and other parts different and translated from the lyrics of Work A.
Also, in the above situations, which one should I use: lyricist or translator?
Note that a lot of STYLE issue discussion has been on standby for some time now, as the style lead has been waiting for this forum replacement to come around. @reosarevok will start up discussion about the first STYLE ticket(s) he thinks need being discussed any day now.
I came here from edit #44129448. As I was explaining there, faithful song translations are extraordinarily rare, for a variety of reasons. If we were to raise the standard for “translation” to “faithful translation” (whatever that is interpreted to mean) we would have few to none left to list in the database.
Perhaps “localized” would be a better term? It’s quite a bit looser than “translation,” as localization involves more than just translation (e.g. adaptation to local political attitudes or cultural norms).
New ticket: https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/STYLE-745
I agree with @HibiscusKazeneko’s STYLE-745 that “adapted” is too loose, but I’m not convinced “localized” is much better. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require a translation to be “roughly about the same thing” as its original, and it’s dubious to say that it’s even localized otherwise. The “based on” relationship seems to fit pretty well in this case, regardless of language:
This is used when a new work is based on or includes (parts of) another work.
It should be noted that by a zealous reading of the current guidelines, lyrics in a different language is all that is required:
This attribute indicates a version with the lyrics in a different language than the original.
As I wrote on one of the tickets, “translated” is commonly used in literature, and it’s understood that a translation of a novel is never going to be word for word. If the lyrics are completely unrelated to the original, then “translated” is not appropriate, but otherwise I don’t see a problem.
Translating lyrics always brings the extra issues of making the words fit the rhythm of the music. Fairly impossible to do a word for word translation. This will require more leeway in the translations.
I think we should consider intent. If the intent is to make a version for a different country, then translation. If the intent was to bring a different message to the song then its adapted.
Adapted would better describe translated songs, indeed.
This attribute could be renamed, for good.
But the issue I want to stress is the numerous songs where the lyrics are unrelated to original.
Doc says to use translated/adapted for all cases like that.
Which I think is not really good.
This is what I was agreeing with on the “adapted”. It is common to take a song from one country, and use the music in another with totally different verses. I agree this is adapted and not translated.
If 80% of the song is the same message, then I’d call that translated. Can be quite common for an artist on tour to sing their own songs in a different language. i.e. Peter Gabriel does this on some tracks.
This was my point as well. Translation of an artistic work - whether a novel, a poem, or a song lyric - is inherently imprecise. That doesn’t make it something other than translation.
I’ve done some of those edits linked above. It’s an album, where, by artist intent, some songs are translations (however loosely translated) and some ara not (entirely different lyrics). I’ve gone with non-translations, because that’s how all songs are explicitly credited in the booklet and when I find the time, I’ll check the lyrics of each song and change back to translations where applicable.
But to the topic: I think, as it is, the translation attribute is fine. As @IvanDobsky and @highstrung said, it’s fine with calling rough adaptations of the idea of the song translations.
The style guide is what’s confusing. The distinction between translation and new lyrics is only implied, as I mentioned in discussion with @jesus2099 on one of my edits. The style guide for work-to-work relationship states:
This attribute indicates a version with the lyrics in a different language than the original.
Now, I’m not a native English speaker, but to me, the article the before the word lyrics signifies that both the original and novel lyrics bear a strong relation. This rules out lyrics which are unrelated, so such works I’d mark as a simple “version of”.
While this is, strictly speaking, correct and possibly exhaustive, I’d advocate for amending the documentation to make it clear and explicit, while keeping the relation translated (and its regular use) as is.
If we wish to distinguish which parts of the songs were adapted, I’d propose a more fine-grained choice than just translated or not. This would, naturally, require further discussion.
I strongly suspect this was in fact the intention here, so I wouldn’t be against an improved wording to that effect. “Telling the same story” doesn’t work for me because many lyrics don’t tell any story
This attribute indicates that lyrics have been translated, literally or freely, from the original language. This does not apply if an entirely new set of lyrics have been set to an an existing melody.
