I run a discography website.
Lets say a pianist recorded a piece in Leningrad at Philharmonic Hall in 1935.
I have a link that lets you click on venue name and view all the recordings that occurred at venue.
The link I have is called Philharmonic Hall, Leningrad, Russia .
Should this be labelled Philharmonic Hall, Saint Petersburg, Russia?
Or should I have these be seperate?
When the user clicks on the link, it then lists from
How should I list it?
If the piece was recorded in 1935, should the list say Leningrad, and if the recording is made after 1991, say Saint Peterburg? Should it simply always say Saint Petersburg now, even though it was not that at the time?
Hopefully this makes some sense.
Would love the feedback. Thanks!
Hi!
I've poundered on your question for quite some time now. Sorry I didn't answer sooner.
I don't think it calls for a very extensive answer but still, let's consider the options.
Bibliography, discography and filmography mostly answer to tradition. What is the established norm? Go with it. Norms do vary from country to country, the bibliographical address of a book won't be written the same in English or in French. It also vary from one field to another. Historians do not reference books or articles the same way biologists do. So the main question you must answer is: "What is the norm in my field, depending on the language I'm writing?" In order to answer that question you must look at various discography, either online or published in books. Follow the examples you see.
Now, is the Philharmonic Hall a location only or an institution as well? How do you consider it? If it is a location, I'd differenciate Saint Petersburg and Leningrad depending when the record was made. It the Philharmonic is an institution that went through a few name changes, you need to keep the last one known to the public.
I hope my answer provided you with some useful tips! I'm sorry I can't do much more.