Re: that migrating "opus"

[David Wright]

On Sun 11 Mar 2018 at 12:40:35 (-0700), Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:
> David,
> 
> Your continued effort to address my inquiry is uncommon. Many more esoteric
> and arcane matters appear on the list with multiple, and often contentious,
> responses. Yet you are the only one to respond to this simple inquiry and
> then it is not posted on the list.

The convention on this list appears to be
 to: a person
 cc: the list
so that's what I do. My response is on the list, but some mail systems
do various things like:
 . deliver only one copy of messages (which could explain your case,
   where you received just the personal copy),
 . refuse to deliver messages they recognise as coming from the sender
   (which can lead people to keep reposting a message to a list
   because they think it never arrives).

> Thank you for your kind attention.
> 
> Your courtesy (your snippet is in my repository!) restricts any further
> comment. Suffice it to say that I have found a simple alternative: put the
> opus number in the "arranger" field.  

Fair enough. There are two things to watch out for:

. the headings are left/right paired, so you can get gaps below them.
  (I use this as a positive feature with Anglican chants, using opus
  for the composer and meter for any necessary annotation, thereby
  ensuring that the composer is close-set and a lengthy annotation
  will not collide with it.)

. There are LP headers that find their way into the PDF metadata, and
  they might end up mislabelled there. Not a worry for most people,
  and there are probably ways to edit such metadata anyway.

Cheers,
David.