[mb-style] CSG compromise?

[Aaron Cooper]

On 1-Mar-08, at 2:16 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

<big snip>

> So until that happy day of NGS support, how do we compromise?  How can
> we ensure that the data allows the BBC to identify the work from the
> track, allows Aaron and me to tag and not find the data "quite messy",
> allows Leivhe and David to tag and have complete but not "overly"
> complete data, and still allows Lauri and her mother-in-law to tag and
> have what she wants?  (Just using us as examples of general user-base
> opinions here.)

<br>

> If we're aiming for "as on the liner", which liner,
> which translation, and what still gets fixed - caps, typos, mislisted
> works, etc?  If we're aiming for CSG, how complete, which languages,
> and are we essentially admitting that classical track titles per
> liners are descriptions and not "titles" per say?  Where can we all
> compromise such that the (I think majority) who wants at least some
> structure in the titles isn't left waiting 1-2 years for NGS to
> replace CSG, plus all the quite likely years of editing work to
> actually implement it across our classical listings?

Proposition:

a) For "chillout classical" releases where tracks are titled "Andante"  
or "Allegro from Sonata No. 14" etc, enter the track titles in MB as  
they appear on the CD and follow regular MB guidelines (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PartNumberStyle 
, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SubTitleStyle, etc)

b) For "real classical" releases, use the CSGS lists for ease of  
entering the releases and consistency.

ProbIems with this?  People don't want long titles:
In the large majority of cases, very little "extra" information is  
added in the CSGStandard lists over and above of what is printed on  
CDs (as I mentioned in a previous email).  The rare and unusual works  
may have unusual track names, but oh well–how often do we listen to  
those rare and unusual works compared to the more popular works?   
Anyone who cares enough to listen to the rare works (and owns a copy!)  
probably wants the extra information in the titles anyways.

Thoughts?

-Aaron