Translations of works

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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?

2 Likes

For both first and second cases it’s almost always adapted, not translated.

For third case I usually (with partial attribute if appropriate) link the recording to both the original and to the new language work.

1 Like

Well, bugs on style usually take ridiculous amount of time to be implemented. Sigh…

Maybe not enough discussion was visibility made about it. So, thanks for this topic. :slight_smile:

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.

5 Likes

That’s great to hear. Looking forward to those.

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

1 Like

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.

@reosarevok, could we think about this work-work version relationship translated attribute again?

It suggests that new lyrics are a translation while according to the doc it should be used each time the language is different.

This attribute indicates a version with the lyrics in a different language than the original.

But most of the time we don’t have translations but adaptations or even unrelated lyrics.

I saw a small set of edits removing the attribute and reread the docs…

Related tickets:

Later related topics:

The attribute is confusing enough to make the issue arise regularly. :wink:

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

Books are always translations indeed.

But for songs, translations are not that frequent.
It’s often an adaptation or even different lyrics.

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

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.

Ok first the name in English.
But the doc says to use this attribute also for totally unrelated lyrics, as long as they are in different languages.

If translated attribute == different languages, then we should remove this redundant attribute.
We already see this info in work languages attributes.

Or the doc should be changed and say it only applies to lyrics of same story:

This attribute indicates a version with the lyrics in a different language than the original, telling the same story.

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.

1 Like

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 :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Telling the same story or exposing the same ideas in the same order. :wink:

1 Like

Maybe we could just add some additional guidance:

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.

9 Likes