[mb-style] Use of recording comment
jargon at molb.org
Thu Jul 7 10:43:45 UTC 2011
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:13:55PM -0500, Michael Wiencek wrote:
> 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).
For me, the standardization would be that the ETI in the name itself is
normalized to a certain form. Maybe one recording is named "Song (FooBar
remix)" on one release, but "Song (Foo & Bar mix)" on another (but it is
100% the same recording). The standardized name would choose one of
them. The option is in my opinion not for removing ETI.
> > 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.
Yes, I also use this style for live recordings. But treating the comment
as part of the name is wrong in my opinion. If a comment is short and
useful for disambiguation, it should be allowed... like for artist
> > 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?
Well, the separate fields would solve the problem, but I think this
might be too complicated...
As mentioned above, I don't see "standardized name" as "base name
without any/most ETI", but as a way to agree on one song name when
multiple are there to choose...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110707/7400c621/attachment.pgp
More information about the MusicBrainz-style