[mb-style] Recording/track distinctions

Frederic Da Vitoria davitofrg at gmail.com
Thu Jul 21 08:01:52 UTC 2011

2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
> Hi everybody,
> I'm really not sure what to do, but I thought I'd at least give it a
> try. I'm personally unhappy with the NGS style guideline changes that
> increase the differences between track titles and recording titles.
> This is generally about the trend to have "as-on-cover" data in track
> titles. I know that many other editors (usually people from the "top
> editors" page that we used to have) disagree with these changes and I
> think we should do something about it, otherwise MB ends up with two
> groups, one of which will be ignoring the style guidelines and MB will
> become a mess.
> A little bit of NGS history. NGS was a fuzzy topic for a very long
> time. If there were concrete ideas, they were unrealistic to
> implement. What is currently implemented is basically based on my
> "simplified NGS" idea. The idea was to strip down the other NGS ideas
> and deal just with the most important problems, which were: track
> merging and multi-disc releases.
> The point is that this version of NGS was never intended to have such
> significant distinctions between recording and track titles. Track
> titles were meant to represent recording title variations in the
> context of the release. The same style guidelines would apply to both
> titles, recording title just being just the most commonly used track
> title. The recording/track model was mostly based on
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/TrackMerging which doesn't even consider
> explicitly maintained recording titles.
> The situation is now different and we are using track titles for
> "as-on-cover" titles, which I believe it wrong. It is wrong, because
> we have no alternative for properly normalized track titles that
> consider the context of the release. People think that recording
> titles solve that problem, but they don't because they don't include
> the release context, so you get problems like these:
>  - Missing extra title information (e.g. "album version", "original
> mix" or "live")
>  - Different spelling of the same language (e.g. UK/US releases)
>  - Different language (e.g. identical official release with different
> titles in different countries, I don't count pseudo-releases here)
> There were the original problems why it was necessary to introduce
> track titles. We wanted to merge identical recordings, but doing it in
> the old database schema would mean we lose this information. Now, if
> you force people who liked MB for normalized data to use recording
> titles, they have to deal with these problems, but it's worse because
> recording merging is now reality. It's just like implementing
> recording merging without adding separate track titles. All in all,
> for these people (and I expect they are vast majority of MB users),
> NGS is worse than MB was before.
> Do you think it's possible to revert these style guidelines at this
> point? I expect that most people either never read them or ignored
> them, so there isn't much data changes, but I also expect that the
> people on mb-style are usually for these changes, so... :)

Could you give actual examples of your issues? I find it difficult to
understand what you think is wrong.

Frederic Da Vitoria

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list