Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

I would capitalize "Minor" (as you have with the Jarrett tracks).

JH,

Many thanks for clarifying. Yes, I will capitalise those Maj/Min titles.

Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Save yourself a few parentheses:

Schoenberg: The Complete String Quartets (Op. 7, Op. 10, Op. 30, Op. 37)

You might also consider:

Schoenberg: The Complete String Quartets (Op. 7, 10, 30, 37)

JH,

I am wondering, like I have done so for (eg.) 'No.5'. removing the 'space' in the Opus numbers?:

Schoenberg: The Complete String Quartets (Op.7, Op.10, Op.30, Op.37)

What do you think, please?

I knew this CLASSICAL ripping was going to be an epic!

Paul

[Jailhouse]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

There should not be a comma between work number and key signature. (And I've not seen that except in this forum.) The lower case 'in' is standard in titling. So, for me:

(Schoenberg) String Quartet No.1 in D Minor: i. Nicht Zu Rasch

(Bach) Prelude No.1 in C Major

However, as has been said many times before, you're free to do as you see fit. If you prefer the last title presentation style in your list, then by all means use it. It's your library and you're the one who has to live with it--so, your rules.

[Jailhouse]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

I am wondering, like I have done so for (eg.) 'No.5'. removing the 'space' in the Opus numbers?:

Schoenberg: The Complete String Quartets (Op.7, Op.10, Op.30, Op.37)

What do you think, please?

I think including the space would be the standard method. An abbreviation stands in for a word and in this example, if you spelled it out, you wouldn't write Opus5. Leaving it out after the abbreviation looks good to my eye, though, especially in the list of opuses, and leaving me agnostic as to which style is better. You do save some space with the multiple opuses.

I knew this CLASSICAL ripping was going to be an epic!

Yeah, sometimes it seems too much like work! But I'm looking forward to it ... I think....

[Oggy]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

JH,

Many thanks for clarifying. Yes, I will capitalise those Maj/Min titles.

Paul

I went lower case as I've seen that convention used more often. Then again, it is a very long time since I scraped through my Grade 1 piano exam!

Beethoven 5th is straightforward; looking forward to the debate on track name for Pastoral and Choral!!

[Jailhouse]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Beethoven 5th is straightforward; looking forward to the debate on track name for Pastoral and Choral!!

You like a good scrap, do you?

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

There should not be a comma between work number and key signature. (And I've not seen that except in this forum.) The lower case 'in' is standard in titling. So, for me:

(Schoenberg) String Quartet No.1 in D Minor: i. Nicht Zu Rasch

(Bach) Prelude No.1 in C Major

However, as has been said many times before, you're free to do as you see fit. If you prefer the last title presentation style in your list, then by all means use it. It's your library and you're the one who has to live with it--so, your rules.

(A quick consolidation)

OK, thanks, I will not place a 'comma' in the track-titles.

I will make the extra effort to lowercase the 'in' words in the track-titles.

Regarding your interesting comments on leaving a space between 'Op.' and the opus number, do you still think that it is OK to not leave a space between the 'No.' and the digit, please? I mean, do you apply the same rule as with opus? Personally, I would much rather not have a space (as per Bach and Schoenberg examples above).

Paul

[Oggy]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

(A quick consolidation)

OK, thanks, I will not place a 'comma' in the track-titles.

I will make the extra effort to lowercase the 'in' words in the track-titles.

Regarding your interesting comments on leaving a space between 'Op.' and the opus number, do you still think that it is OK to not leave a space between the 'No.' and the digit, please? I mean, do you apply the same rule as with opus? Personally, I would much rather not have a space (as per Bach and Schoenberg examples above).

Paul

Paul,

Major / major maj. No.1, No. 1, Opus1, Opus 1, in all seriousness use whichever works best for you. I'm sure you're going to have far bigger decisions to make regarding Classical tagging!

[Jailhouse]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Regarding your interesting comments on leaving a space between 'Op.' and the opus number, do you still think that it is OK to not leave a space between the 'No.' and the digit, please? I mean, do you apply the same rule as with opus? Personally, I would much rather not have a space (as per Bach and Schoenberg examples above).

I think it's fine to eliminate the space if that's what you want to do, which is the case here, and it is consistent with how you want to handle opuses. Go for it!

I'll have to decide how to handle Op. and No. and spaces when I start actually ripping Classical CDs rather than just talking about it. For now, I have no strong opinion either way, although I do lean a bit toward the no-space format when it comes to a list of more than one.

[Oggy]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Hi,

In the screenshot Oggy kindly u/l, as regards to (Beethoven) 'Symphony No. 5 in C Minor', I have a couple of comments, if I may.

Oggy chooses to place a space in 'No. 5'. I actually originally did this on all of my JAZZ genre rips since July last. For instance, on Miles Davis's 'Blues No. 2' (from 'Circle In The Round' CD). And I initially followed suit with my recent Jarrett-Bach/Schostakovich rips of this week. For example, 'Prelude & Fugue No. 1 In C Major'. However, this evening (and it has taken me nearly 2 hours to perform these edits!), I have decided to remove the space from all such scenarios. And so, I now have:

(Miles Davis) 'Blues No.2'

(Bach) 'Prelude & Fugue No.1 In C Major'

The reason being, the space looked fine on the JAZZ CDs because the titles are simple, but it looked clumsy on the CLASSICAL CDs because the titles are complex. This is just my own opinion and not at all a criticism of Oggy's excellent work. I was just going to edit my CLASSICALs in this regard, but then I decided I wanted to maintain absolute consistency regardless of genre, and so I altered all of my JAZZ rips to.

Secondly, Oggy chooses to lower-case the 'in' which joins the 'Work' to the 'Key-Signature'. I am considering doing this myself, but I am still 50/50 over it. I do think this scheme looks very easy on the eye, but it means spending another good hour re-tagging. Is it really worth it?, or will I regret it later down the line if I don't? (and consequently end up with 50+ CLASSICAL CDs to re-tag in this regard!).

Thirdly, I am very tempted to insert a 'comma' in certain CLASSICAL titles. These would fall between the 'Work No.' and the 'Key-Signature'. For instance, at the moment I have:

(Schoenberg) String Quartet No.1 In D Minor: i. Nicht Zu Rasch ''

(Bach) 'Prelude No.1 In C Major'

and so with the comma in place the result would be:

(Schoenberg) String Quartet No.1, In D Minor: i. Nicht Zu Rasch ''

(Bach) 'Prelude No.1, In C Major'

and then following Oggy's lower-case legend:

(Schoenberg) String Quartet No.1, in D Minor: i. Nicht Zu Rasch ''

(Bach) 'Prelude No.1, in C Major'

Any advice would be appreciated as always.

I think including the space would be the standard method. An abbreviation stands in for a word and in this example, if you spelled it out, you wouldn't write Opus5. Leaving it out after the abbreviation looks good to my eye, though, especially in the list of opuses, and leaving me agnostic as to which style is better. You do save some space with the multiple opuses.



Yeah, sometimes it seems too much like work! But I'm looking forward to it ... I think....

Hi Jailhouse and Paul,

Out of interest I pulled out the Beethoven / Karajan boxset to see what naming they had on the back cover. The fronts can be seen from the screenshots - Symphonies nos. 5 & 6 Berliner Philharmoniker KARAJAN BEETHOVEN

Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67

[1] 1. Allegro con brio

And wait for it

Symphony no. 6 in F major, op. 68 "Pastoral"

[1] 1. Angenehme, heitere Empfindungen, weiche bei der Ankunft auf dem Lande im Menschen erwachen . Allegro ma non troppo


So apart from changing from Symphonies nos. 5 & 6 to Symphony No. 5, capitalising the n, I also capitalised the o in op.

More controversially, I changed 1. to. i.

Simply thought it looked better.

And for the Pastoral Symphony, I used English / Italian, rather than German / Italian!

As I mentioned, these were my first attempts with Classical CDs, and like the majority of folks seem to do, whose collections are mainly Popular music, ..... left them to last. I did start reading a thread about naming Classical CDs, kindly suggested by someone far more experienced than myself, but found that you could almost directly multiply the number of solutions by the number of participants!

In the end I simply had a go myself, as a short term fix, where I could find and play the music, whilst obeying the simple rules that I had used for Popular music.

I thought a thread like this would come along sooner or later, where I could reassess and take others' suggestions on board, and utilise any ideas that gave (me) improvements.

Looking at my Beethoven 5th now, I've no idea why I capitalised no. and op., so would probably actually use what it said on the tin!

Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67


Of course there are always choices!


Edit. I think I used Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67, because a year ago, on the day I named the CD, that is what made sense, without overthinking!!

[Dat Ei]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Hey Oggy,

[1] 1. Angenehme, heitere Empfindungen, weiche bei der Ankunft auf dem Lande im [COLOR="*FF0000"]Menshen[/COLOR] erwachen . Allegro ma non troppo

is this printed on the cover? This is a typo. The right spelling is "Menschen" (humans).

More controversially, I changed 1. to. i.

Do as you like as long as you don't call it roman numerals (that is not a question of breaking the rules).

Arnold Schönberg / Schoenberg is a very special case. He was born as "Schönberg", but changed the spelling of his last name to "Schoenberg" after his emigration. So do we have we tell when his opus has been composed to use the right spelling?


Dat Ei

[Oggy]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Hey Oggy,



is this printed on the cover? This is a typo. The right spelling is "Menschen" (humans).



Do as you like as long as you don't call it roman numerals (that is not a question of breaking the rules).

Arnold Schönberg / Schoenberg is a very special case. He was born as "Schönberg", but changed the spelling of his last name to "Schoenberg" after his emigration. So do we have we tell when his opus has been composed to use the right spelling?


Dat Ei

Thanks Dat Ei for pointing out my typo, which I have corrected, with confession! For accuracy and courtesy, I do try to input correctly, but I'm human!

No, I didn't call i a Roman numeral, simply thought that it looked good.

For so many reasons Classical naming is difficult, one being whether to Anglicise, or not. I did use Berliner Philharmoniker (a picture paints a thousand words!), though it would make perfect sense for a native English speaker, to have used Berlin Philharmonic.

Out of interest, I popped the disc back into CD Ripper to see what metadata was pulled up by the providers. Predictably, every entry had three variations, including Philharmoniker / Philharmonic, and all had the album name at the start of the track name - which I very much wanted to avoid. Most obvious differences are those for Artist and Album Artist, where the lack of standardisation for Classical naming is highlighted.

The plus point is that unlike a lesser known recording, there is metadata to edit down from!

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

I think it's fine to eliminate the space if that's what you want to do, which is the case here, and it is consistent with how you want to handle opuses. Go for it!

I'll have to decide how to handle Op. and No. and spaces when I start actually ripping Classical CDs rather than just talking about it. For now, I have no strong opinion either way, although I do lean a bit toward the no-space format when it comes to a list of more than one.

JH,

OK, cheers.

I will not be using spaces in any cases of 'No.' or 'Op.'.

I had a look through some of my CDs and also full-scores and the amount of variations between different formats of naming schemes is seemingly infinite. To the extent that in some cases, the TITLE on the front of the CD appears different to how it is present on the rear!

Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

So apart from changing from Symphonies nos. 5 & 6 to Symphony No. 5, capitalising the n, I also capitalised the o in op.

More controversially, I changed 1. to. i.

Simply thought it looked better.

As I mentioned, these were my first attempts with Classical CDs, and like the majority of folks seem to do, whose collections are mainly Popular music, ..... left them to last. I did start reading a thread about naming Classical CDs, kindly suggested by someone far more experienced than myself, but found that you could almost directly multiply the number of solutions by the number of participants!

In the end I simply had a go myself, as a short term fix, where I could find and play the music, whilst obeying the simple rules that I had used for Popular music.

I thought a thread like this would come along sooner or later, where I could reassess and take others' suggestions on board, and utilise any ideas that gave (me) improvements.

Looking at my Beethoven 5th now, I've no idea why I capitalised no. and op., so would probably actually use what it said on the tin!

Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67!

Cheers Oggy,

I prefer the lowercase 'in' to the uppercase version, and so I will be editing these. And I prefer the uppercase 'No.' and 'Op.' to the lowercase versions, and so I will be leaving these as is.

I have adopted your method of changing the 'I' to a 'i'.

Where you use a 'comma' before the Op. No., I instead choose to place the Opus in parentheses.

I think leaving the CLASSICALs until last is an instinctive decision. To be honest, I can't even imagine anyone choosing to start out with this genre!

I, like your, try to incorporate the rules which have been set in previously ripped genres such as JAZZ and POP. With some compromise, everything can fit with a bit of squeeze.

I did look at another thread which was kinda dedicated to this topic (it may have been the same one you refer to yourself), but, although interesting, it was not quite relevant enough for my specific needs.

Paul

[Oggy]

Re: Tags, Tags, and more Tags ...

Cheers Oggy,

I prefer the lowercase 'in' to the uppercase version, and so I will be editing these. And I prefer the uppercase 'No.' and 'Op.' to the lowercase versions, and so I will be leaving these as is.

I have adopted your method of changing the 'I' to a 'i'.

Where you use a 'comma' before the Op. No., I instead choose to place the Opus in parentheses.

I think leaving the CLASSICALs until last is an instinctive decision. To be honest, I can't even imagine anyone choosing to start out with this genre!

I, like your, try to incorporate the rules which have been set in previously ripped genres such as JAZZ and POP. With some compromise, everything can fit with a bit of squeeze.

I did look at another thread which was kinda dedicated to this topic (it may have been the same one you refer to yourself), but, although interesting, it was not quite relevant enough for my specific needs.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Apart from knowing that at some stage I would revisit my Classical tagging, on reflection, and with far more luck than judgement, I do actually prefer what I originally used including the No. and Op. Can't say that this is the sort of thing that I'd reflect on , but I do prefer the lower case major / minor, so -

Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67

It stays, and because it's what I intuitively went for, I'm far more likely to be consistent, which is probably more important than worrying about small differences which are purely personal choices.