[mb-style] Request for Clarification: positioning of disc numbers

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/10/18, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com>:
> On 10/18/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2006/10/18, David Gibson <musicbrainz at gibson.dropbear.id.au>:
> > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:40:08PM +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > > > 2006/10/18, David Gibson <musicbrainz at gibson.dropbear.id.au>:
> > > > >As far as I can tell, the current style guideline information doesn't
> > > > >have any examples covering the intersection of DiscNumberStyle and
> > > > >ClassicalStyleGuide.  Which order should the information mandated by
> > > > >each go, that is should it be:
> > > > >
> > > > >    Big Works (Timbuktu Philharmomic feat. conductor Fred Nertz) (disc 1)
> > > > >or
> > > > >    Big Works (disc 1) (Timbuktu Philharmomic feat. conductor Fred Nertz)
> > > > >
> > > > >I think the first option is more logical - particularly if the discs
> > > > >of the release appear together in a list it's more quickly obvious
> > > > >that they are discs of the same release if the variable part is at the
> > > > >end.
> > > > >
> > > > >It's a little less obvious when the disc number includes a disc title
> > > > >as well, and several release of this type have been entered the other
> > > > >way around recently.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > My first reaction was to agree with you. This would be better for
> > > > sorting: all the discs of a same release would come together if you
> > > > put the performers before, which seems a good feature. But there might
> > > > be exceptions if the performers change from disc to disc...
> > >
> > > Yes.. but the same group of performers would be the more common case.
> > > And if we put disc number last where it is the only changing part, we
> > > should probably put it last always, for consistency.  I can't think of
> > > a (non-contrived) case where putting the disc number before the
> > > perfomer info is actually better, only cases where it makes no
> > > difference or is worse.
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> > > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
> > >                                 | _way_ _around_!
> > > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
> >
> > Not so sure. A box set of Mozart's complete works comes to mind... But
> > I agree this is very rare. It should only be used if the performers
> > change from disc to disc.
> >
> > --
> > Frederic Da Vitoria
> >
>
> The performer/conductor information that we add to Classical releases
> is not part of the Release Title.  I would argue that disc numbers are
> "part" of the release title, or at lease more so than performer
> information.  I like the second format:
>
> "Big Works (disc 1) (Timbuktu Philharmomic feat. conductor Fred Nertz)"
>
> This way, when a large box set has different performers they are still
> sorted in the correct order, according to disc number. Just picture
> this:
>
> "ReleaseTitle (ABC Orchestra feat. conductor: WhatsHerName) (disc 3)"
> "ReleaseTitle (DEF Orchestra feat. conductor: SoAndSo) (disc 1)"
> "ReleaseTitle (GHI Orchestra feat. conductor: TheUglyOne) (disc 2)"
>
> --
> -Aaron

Yes, but imagine for Beethoven:
The Nine Symphonies (disc 1) (George Szell)
The Nine Symphonies (disc 1) (Georg Solti)
The Nine Symphonies (disc 2) (George Szell)
...
We are actually mixing discs from different box sets.

You can do the same with "Symphonies Nos. 1-9" by Herbert Kegel, Janos
Ferencsik and Bernard Haitink. And I only used Amazon's first answers
for Beethoven Symphonies!

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria