[mb-style] Recording/track distinctions
lalinsky at gmail.com
Thu Jul 21 11:41:14 UTC 2011
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
<davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm going to need a little more info :-)
> 2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
>> <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Could you give actual examples of your issues? I find it difficult to
>>> understand what you think is wrong.
>> 1. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1b7be9fe-fbeb-4941-b1f7-7eaf9fa9f99e
>> -- Different languages. Let's say I have the 1981 US release, I do not
>> want "Les Chants magnétiques, Part 1" in my tags, but I do not want
>> "Magnetic Fields Pt. 1" either (or whatever the cover says).
> Then what do you want?
I want my tags to contain "Magnetic Fields, Part 1", which is the
title localized for the release that I have, but normalized according
to the usual MB guidelines.
>> 2. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/c59cbf07-eab6-46e3-a68c-ffaebef21f2c
>> -- These are really the same recordings, but the remixes are named
>> slightly differently on different releases. I do not want to lose the
>> different naming.
> What is actually printed on each release?
I don't know, I don't have the physical releases. Let's assume one
says "No Good (Start the Dance) [CJ Bolland's Museum mix]" and the
other one says "No Good (Start the Dance) (CJ Bolland's mix)". With
as-on-cover track titles, I'm forced to use recording titles. If I use
recording titles, I can only use one variant on all releases.
>> 3. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/3d953e11-c417-4034-a5d1-d0f41405337e
>> -- Disambiguation information like "(live)" shouldn't really be part
>> of the recording title, because it's inconsistent with live releases
>> that usually do not explicitly mention that. On the other hand, it
>> should be in the track title if the release explicitly says so. I do
>> not know of a recording that is from a live release and later included
>> on a complication/album, but I'm sure many of them exist, I just don't
>> listen much to music that can actually be performed live.
> I don't understand your argument here. A recording does not belong to
> a release, it happens to be part of a release, which is a completely
> different thing. So I don't see how you can avoid putting some
> disambiguation information on the recording (in the title or in the
What I'm saying that the recording shouldn't have "(live)" in the
title. It should be moved to the disambiguation comment. But the
recording is included in a release that explicitly marks is as "Death
of the Prodigy Dancers (live)". I want my tracks to have "Death of the
Prodigy Dancers (live)", not "Death of the Prodigy Dancers". On the
other hand, if the concert from which the track is was released, I
would want it as "Death of the Prodigy Dancers" in the context of the
>> 4. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/d1623f2f-e59f-478d-988a-48bfa14a2100
>> -- Same recording, but has "original mix" included on the single
> Are these the same master (indistinguishable by ear) or do they sound different?
I wouldn't merge recordings that sound different. :)
More information about the MusicBrainz-style