[mb-style] [CSG] Short form CSG (was Re: Bach passions and CSG)

[Lauri Watts]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Brant Gibbard <bgibbard at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: musicbrainz-style-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org
>  > [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org] On
>  > Behalf Of Brian Schweitzer
>  > Sent: March-22-08 7:20 AM
>  > To: MusicBrainz style discussion
>  > Subject: Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Short form CSG (was Re: Bach
>  > passions and CSG)
>  >
>  > While we're discussing what guidelines for tracks to use, let
>  > me toss out one other possiblity, something I know I've seen
>  > at least a few dozen times...  What about misidentified
>  > works?  Not typos, not simply "correct work but not enough to
>  > really ID it", but true misidentifications?
>  >
>
>  My preference would be to correct outright errors, and put the correct
>  identification (or at least "current interpretation") in the titles, but
>  make a note of the mis- or outdated- identification in an annotation to
>  reduce the likelihood of others with the same recording not realizing and
>  perpetuating the discrepancy.
>

That is exactly what we do for rock albums.

Off the top of my head here's one I know well:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/ec296c98-a954-4ae2-9e50-40ec6753c6c3.html

In that case, the cover and liners inexplicably list a track that
isn't even on the album, and put it right  in the middle of the album,
offsetting the second half of the tracklist by one song, and messing
up the titles of some of the others..

Our tracklisting is accurate against the actual content of the album, however.

-- 
Lauri Watts