[mb-users] Changing the UntitledTrackStyle for releases with mostly untitled tracks

[Bogdan Butnaru]

On 9/15/07, fridaythe14th <mail at albinlarsson.com> wrote:
> > If it is for tagging, fix it in the tagger.  Having them all [untitled]
> > makes it easy to identify them and treat them in slightly different way.
> > Not just for the tagger, but also for other applications who display
> > or use this data.
> Shouldn't all titles within square brackets be recognizable as untitled?
> I understand what you mean though. It is redundant data for the db, and
> different ppl have different opinions about formatting.
>
>
> (I would prefer to tag such files with an empty string for the track
> >  title, no need for %num to be in there, that is already in the track
> >  number field).
> Well, the reason I prefer to have the %num in the title is mainly because of
> scrobbling and displaying in playlists.

This is actually a good argument for doing it in the tagger. Different
people want different things, so I think the database should be in the
simplest, lowest-redundancy-level state.

In this case, we already know the number of the song, and we now the
song has no name. We shouldn't mess them up together. You can do that
in the tagger if you wish.

(However, note that untitled tracks may contain a description,
lower-case in brackets, instead of just [untitled], if it makes sense.
That's different from numbering them because it's not redundant (we
have the numbers somewhere else, but not the description). As an
example (just the first thing that comes to mind), it's common for a
set of untitled poems (say, sonets) to address each by their first
verse. Other things may make sense, too.)

-- Bogdan Butnaru — bogdanb at gmail.com
"I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O.