The proper way to manage this diversity of naming is to use aliases. Indeed the fact that some of these works have received different names in different publications makes defining a single canonical name for these works difficult. It is also unclear what you call “generic” and “non-generic”. Providing several names to a single work, “generic” and “non-generic” do not seem appropriate, there should be a single title for a single work. The canonical title of the work, expressed in the language it was originally written. I disagree with this approach, as this do not seem to comply with the guideline from Metabrainz documentation: So my view would be not to remove the generic names, but to make them consistent and German.ĮDIT: given the potential widespread impact of this issue, a comment by would be helpful. The source you quote is interesting, but is one of many (Wikipedia, for example) and they are all slightly different. omitting the generic number even if there is one)Īlso, the generic name is in German not English (Kantate not Cantata). Generic name, Catalogue number, non-generic name Reviewing the entries for Bach, it seems to me that those which have received most attention have the structure: Generic name & number, catalogue number, non-generic name Unfortunately, the style guidelines don’t seem to say much about naming works (as opposed to track titles), but the general approach seems to be: In other words, while important, the catalogue is only one consideration. I suggest the following.įor the BWV 988 main work I would use “Goldberg-Variationen, BWV 988” as is in MB already, representing common usage and the catalogue in IMSLP, but I would consider adding an alias of “Aria mit verschiedene… IMO the most important is common usage combined with ease of location, but retaining as much score info as possible. IMO when naming works like these we need to balance three elements: the score the catalogue (for main works) and ease of location when searching. My suggestion would be to use this as “golden source” for canonical names of J.S Bach. It provides an easy to use source for “canonical” information on J.S. This database is professionally curated and updated with the latest updates from research on J.S. This lead me to use what seems to be the most reliable and up to date source on J.S. These different sources may have minor differences or errors, or include comments from editors of these sources. There are a number of sources with copies of the catalog listing: This approach raises the question of where to find this information from the BWV catalog. This naming would be in line with the second example, and a large number of names already given. Title of the work in BWV catalog", BWV # (number of the work in the catalog) This lead me to consider that the “canonical” name of a work should be the name/title of the work in this catalog. Bach is usually considered the BWV catalog. This lead me to wonder what should be the naming rule for Bach works, which is typically difficult, as they have been named differently in different publications. (This is also an organ choral, exactly the same type of work) Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein, BWV 734 While others are using only the work title followed by the BWV reference: Some of his works are named using collection titles, or descriptive words (type of work):Ĭhoralvorspiel, BWV 614 “Das alte Jahr vergangen ist”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |