[mb-style] Use of recording comment

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Thu Jul 7 22:33:52 UTC 2011


On 2011-07-07 16:17, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 19:19, Alex Mauer<hawke at hawkesnest.net>  wrote:
>> I'll give it a shot:
>> "No artist's Recordings tab should list the same title twice with no
>> disambiguation comment. If an artist has multiple recordings with the
>> same title, and any release on which one of them appears lists the title
>> with no Extra Title Information, the disambiguation comment should use
>> the most prevalent Extra Title Information. If no ETI is prevalent, pick
>> one.  If no ETI is available, use the best information you have to
>> disambiguate."
>
> This doesn't sound all too crazy. By this standard, I think that
> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779672 is correct but I'm not sure about
> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779686 and
> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779684

Agreed.  I've cancelled the latter two.

> Is it your intention that if a recording has been released on a crappy
> compilation with ETI omitted which are on all releases closer to the
> artist, that ETI still be left out of the recording title? How about a
> compilation released by the artists own label? Making this kind of
> distinction kind of tricky.

Well, without concrete examples based on artists whose recordings have 
been fully cleaned up and merged it's a little hard to say for sure. 
The only artist I'm that confident of is Jonathan Coulton, and he 
doesn't have any weird compilations like you mention, so that doesn't 
help.  Also, I think the use cases for tagging from various combinations 
of (tracklist/recording/recording comment/work/work comment) are yet to 
be developed and we may need to wait for that before it can be said for 
sure whether this guideline works perfectly or needs some tweaking.




More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list