[mb-style] Use of recording comment
yindesu at gmail.com
Thu Jul 7 03:22:53 UTC 2011
If you really want your tagger to remove ETI from the title tag, why can't
you just use the Work Name instead of the Recording Name?
Moving so much information out of the title and into the comment (which I
believe to be far too radical to reasonable extend beyond "album version"
and "live".. even then there will be exceptions) is only going to create
more work for everyone and make editing even more complicated than it
already is. With this way, ALL recordings would ideally need to be
pre-created before adding a release, unless the editor wants to wait 3 weeks
for title edits to go through.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Michael Wiencek <mwtuea at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Johannes Weißl wrote:
> > That is why I called it "rule of thumb". It is certainly not meant to
> > cover all possibilities. But if a recording appears on several releases,
> > and removing ETI would cause recording names on one release to clash,
> > this is a good indicator that the recording is different enough to
> > justify the ETI in the name...
> If there's a clash on a release somewhere, I'd look at the context
> before deciding what the ETI indicates for the title.
> If we include too much version information in recording titles based
> on this method, it might cause the opposite problem for people using
> standardized titles in Picard (having version information that is
> superfluous or of a different context on other releases).
> > I have problems with this approach. The comment isn't some normalized
> > information (with style guidelines), it is a comment. It can be e.g.
> > "recorded with a stylus on concert X". I wouldn't want the comment in my
> > track titles (but maybe as COMMENT field in ID3/Vorbis), just as I don't
> > want the artist comment in my artist names. Why should they be handled
> > differently?
> They can be normalized if we want them to be. We already have a
> guideline for standardizing the comments of live recordings:
> I would say "recorded with a stylus on concert X" is more suitable for
> the annotation than the comment field.
> > Also, plugins should offer some extra functionality, not fix things that
> > are broken otherwise. If some option in Picard works only with an
> > additional plugin, either Picard or the database needs to be fixed...
> At least one group of people will consider it broken no matter what the
> guideline is. ;) How might you fix it? Separate fields for "extra title
> information" and "disambiguation comment" in the database?
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MusicBrainz-style