[mb-style] RFC-333: Unify track/recording guidelines

Lukáš Lalinský lalinsky at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 23:34:15 UTC 2011

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:35 PM, jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe at jetable.org> wrote:
> -1
> I vote AGAINST this proposal as we have had a great new feature allowing us
> to match the original styles in tracks while letting ISO-9001 people have
> their canonical or whatever you call them title forms in recordings.
> I’m not willing to regress.

There are two sides of this issue and I can't say the argument is
invalid. It is valid, but this NGS iteration is not the right time to
solve this problem. As I mentioned in my original post, I believe
MusicBrainz is not ready for this. This means that either you:

1) Copy track titles from the cover almost verbatim, which brings some
benefit to a minority, but it loses the normalized track titles in the
context of a release which MB had for a long time and what brought
many of the current and past editors to MB. Apart from this, it
actually makes it more complicated to enter releases for new users.

2) Apply normalization to both track and recording titles, in which
case are in the same situation as before NGS, but with one huge
advantage of being able to merge recordings. Yes, this doesn't solve
the problem you are describing, but the problem was not meant to be
completely solved yet. Instead this gives us time to continue using MB
in a way that most editors are familiar with, experiment with the new
data model without any radical changes, and when we see what is and
what isn't possible to do with the new model, we can evaluate which
guidelines can be changed or which technical changes are needed to
make everybody happy.


More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list