RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

LordSputnik
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like "(bonus track)" in the title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.

My suggestion would be to add this on the end:

"... Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release, such as "(bonus track)", should be removed before setting the recording title."

I wouldn't consider stuff like "explicit" to be a problem here, because that is probably actual ETI (it differentiates the track from clean tracks of the same name).

Can anyone think of any other examples where this might break? Should we be more general, and say something like "information not relevant to the recording should be removed"?

New RFC End: 2013-08-30, 21:00 UTC (I really hope)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

Kuno Woudt
Hello,

On 08/27/2013 10:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:

> So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like "(bonus track)" in the
> title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
> the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
>
> My suggestion would be to add this on the end:
>
> "... Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release, such as
> "(bonus track)", should be removed before setting the recording title."
>
> I wouldn't consider stuff like "explicit" to be a problem here, because that
> is probably actual ETI (it differentiates the track from clean tracks of the
> same name).
>
> Can anyone think of any other examples where this might break? Should we be
> more general, and say something like "information not relevant to the
> recording should be removed"?

Hm, I recently entered a release [2] with both explicit and clean
tracks.  On iTunes this is clearly not part of the title [1], so I
entered this as disambiguation only on the recordings and not included
it in track nor recording title.

It seems this would be against the new guideline, correct?
(if so, is that intended? :)

-- kuno / warp.

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/ja/album/id674278841
[2] https://musicbrainz.org/release/1034a4c2-c78b-4208-b18e-327ae3bb63e4


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

LordSputnik
It probably would be against the new guideline, yes, and it is intended (there isn't really a good reason for putting it in one or the other).

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

tommycrock
In reply to this post by Kuno Woudt


On Aug 27, 2013 9:43 PM, "Kuno Woudt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 08/27/2013 10:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
> > So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like "(bonus track)" in the
> > title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
> > the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to add this on the end:
> >
> > "... Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release, such as
> > "(bonus track)", should be removed before setting the recording title."
> >
> > I wouldn't consider stuff like "explicit" to be a problem here, because that
> > is probably actual ETI (it differentiates the track from clean tracks of the
> > same name).
> >
> > Can anyone think of any other examples where this might break? Should we be
> > more general, and say something like "information not relevant to the
> > recording should be removed"?
>
> Hm, I recently entered a release [2] with both explicit and clean
> tracks.  On iTunes this is clearly not part of the title [1], so I
> entered this as disambiguation only on the recordings and not included
> it in track nor recording title.

To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit track. If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems "raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...

>
> It seems this would be against the new guideline, correct?
> (if so, is that intended? :)

I don't see why it would be against the guideline, since the guideline doesn't deal with disambiguation, except in the case of live. Clearly some disambiguation should be entered if the titles are the same, and what's listed would seem a good place to start.

>
> -- kuno / warp.
>
> [1] https://itunes.apple.com/ja/album/id674278841
> [2] https://musicbrainz.org/release/1034a4c2-c78b-4208-b18e-327ae3bb63e4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

lixobix
Tom Crocker wrote
To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit track.
If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page
http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems
"raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...
I think you're right. This is an issue with track titles (which it seems may be next). At risk of spinning off topic, what do we think about whether info such as 'bonus track' and 'explicit' should be in in the track titles? Because if we agree they should be dropped from track titles, that nullifies the problem for recordings.

I think it should be dropped, as it is marketing info.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

Duke Yin
About iTunes:
 iTunes isn't always consistent, but in their m4a tagging standard they define a metadata field to indicating the quality of the lyrics:
- Explicit
- Clean (used for edits / censoring)
- (none)
This is what the iTunes store/website displays at the track level.  I don't know what they're doing about the release-level markings.

The usefulness of that data however is mostly limited to Western releases.  I've seen an entire game soundtrack of instrumentals (zero vocals) get each track flagged as Explicit even though both the music and the game are safe for anyone to enjoy [1].  And there are of course other ways to indicate the content of lyrics, used by other services [2].

How that matters to Musicbrainz:

Since we don't have a flag at the work or recording level to indicate this, the data of course needs to go somewhere... I'd think most cases it belongs in the disambiguation, not the actual title.  @lixobix, "Explicit" or "Clean"(edited/censored/blanked) is definitely not marketing info however - it is essential to identify those recordings which iTunes has marked correctly, where there exists both an Explicit recording and an edited (butchered?) "Clean" version.  If there's only an Explicit recording and no known edits, then of course that data is no longer necessary to differentiate recordings, but it could still be useful to put in the disambiguation, especially since Western albums come out before the singles / radio edits.



On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:09 PM, lixobix <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
> To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
> use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
> track.
> If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
> listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page
> http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems
> "raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...

I think you're right. This is an issue with track titles (which it seems may
be next). At risk of spinning off topic, what do we think about whether info
such as 'bonus track' and 'explicit' should be in in the track titles?
Because if we agree they should be dropped from track titles, that nullifies
the problem for recordings.

I think it should be dropped, as it is marketing info.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-2-tp4657255p4657262.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
In reply to this post by lixobix
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:09 AM, lixobix <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
> To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
> use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
> track.
> If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
> listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page
> http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems
> "raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...

I think you're right. This is an issue with track titles (which it seems may
be next). At risk of spinning off topic, what do we think about whether info
such as 'bonus track' and 'explicit' should be in in the track titles?
Because if we agree they should be dropped from track titles, that nullifies
the problem for recordings.

I think it should be dropped, as it is marketing info.

Funnily enough, one of the first iterations of our guidelines (I'm talking 2004/2005 here) did explicitly say to remove "bonus track". I'm not sure at what point that got lost (and I doubt it was intentional), but our guess case scripts still auto-remove it :)

I don't think "explicit" is really marketing info though, if there is a clean version, that differentiates them as much as, say, "acoustic" does.

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

tommycrock
In reply to this post by lixobix

I think it depends on context. In a case like this with two versions it can distinguish, so providing it's shown I'd expect it to be included as ETI. If it's just general info about the track, with no attempt to disambiguate, I'd suggest it was dropped. But that's tricky because the context is not just the release but also other known recordings. Anyway, let's discuss that later.

On Aug 27, 2013 11:10 PM, "lixobix" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
> To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
> use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
> track.
> If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
> listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page
> http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems
> "raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...

I think you're right. This is an issue with track titles (which it seems may
be next). At risk of spinning off topic, what do we think about whether info
such as 'bonus track' and 'explicit' should be in in the track titles?
Because if we agree they should be dropped from track titles, that nullifies
the problem for recordings.

I think it should be dropped, as it is marketing info.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-2-tp4657255p4657262.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

LordSputnik

So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal is done?

On 27 Aug 2013 23:20, "Tom Crocker" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think it depends on context. In a case like this with two versions it can distinguish, so providing it's shown I'd expect it to be included as ETI. If it's just general info about the track, with no attempt to disambiguate, I'd suggest it was dropped. But that's tricky because the context is not just the release but also other known recordings. Anyway, let's discuss that later.

On Aug 27, 2013 11:10 PM, "lixobix" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
> To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
> use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
> track.
> If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
> listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page
> http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems
> "raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...

I think you're right. This is an issue with track titles (which it seems may
be next). At risk of spinning off topic, what do we think about whether info
such as 'bonus track' and 'explicit' should be in in the track titles?
Because if we agree they should be dropped from track titles, that nullifies
the problem for recordings.

I think it should be dropped, as it is marketing info.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-2-tp4657255p4657262.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

tommycrock
As far as I'm concerned it was fine without it and it's fine with it.

+1


On 28 August 2013 09:32, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal is done?

On 27 Aug 2013 23:20, "Tom Crocker" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think it depends on context. In a case like this with two versions it can distinguish, so providing it's shown I'd expect it to be included as ETI. If it's just general info about the track, with no attempt to disambiguate, I'd suggest it was dropped. But that's tricky because the context is not just the release but also other known recordings. Anyway, let's discuss that later.

On Aug 27, 2013 11:10 PM, "lixobix" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
> To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
> use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
> track.
> If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
> listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud page
> http://m.soundcloud.com/p-suspectz/munga-clean-like-whistle-raw it seems
> "raw" and "clean" were the intended ETI.  Anyway...

I think you're right. This is an issue with track titles (which it seems may
be next). At risk of spinning off topic, what do we think about whether info
such as 'bonus track' and 'explicit' should be in in the track titles?
Because if we agree they should be dropped from track titles, that nullifies
the problem for recordings.

I think it should be dropped, as it is marketing info.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-2-tp4657255p4657262.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

lixobix
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
LordSputnik wrote
So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
is done?
Well, it reads as an odd phrase to me:

"Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release"

Relate it to a release, as opposed to what? Recording? But this is part of the recording definition. Are track titles not entirely related to their respective releases?

Bonus track should clearly be removed. We all agree on that, so just state it (better to put it on the ETI guide than here).

Explicit/clean are problematic, because they can be used as marketing info, e.g. to mark a recording as explicit when there is no clean version. In such cases, it could hardly be said that explicit is distinguishing anything, it is just there as a marker for the customer.

Where there are both explicit and clean versions, I regard the explicit version as the definitive one, as this is the original artist intent. There is always some extra factor which results in the making of a clean version, e.g. label decision or merely the artist's desire for airplay. Therefore, explicit should always be removed at track level, but clean should always be included, and kept as ETI for recordings.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

Jazzy Jarilith
I agree with most of what lixobix wrote above even though I'm not very in favor of leaving any kind of ETI on track level. I would rather see the ETI on recordings (automatically or on demand) appear in the tracklist. I have no idea if it is possible, but it would be a more elegant and more logical way to do it.


2013/8/28 lixobix <[hidden email]>
LordSputnik wrote
> So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
> sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
> is done?

Well, it reads as an odd phrase to me:

"Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release"

Relate it to a release, as opposed to what? Recording? But this is part of
the recording definition. Are track titles not entirely related to their
respective releases?

Bonus track should clearly be removed. We all agree on that, so just state
it (better to put it on the ETI guide than here).

Explicit/clean are problematic, because they can be used as marketing info,
e.g. to mark a recording as explicit when there is no clean version. In such
cases, it could hardly be said that explicit is distinguishing anything, it
is just there as a marker for the customer.

Where there are both explicit and clean versions, I regard the explicit
version as the definitive one, as this is the original artist intent. There
is always some extra factor which results in the making of a clean version,
e.g. label decision or merely the artist's desire for airplay. Therefore,
explicit should always be removed at track level, but clean should always be
included, and kept as ETI for recordings.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-2-tp4657255p4657277.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

Jazzy Jarilith
Oh, and I forgot, I'm not in favor to move the ETI from the disambiguation field to the title. :-)
I cannot understand the logic of it, and I find the use of the disambiguation field efficient enough.
As far as I know, artists never use ETI when they announce the songs they are about to play. :-P


2013/8/28 Jazzy Jarilith <[hidden email]>
I agree with most of what lixobix wrote above even though I'm not very in favor of leaving any kind of ETI on track level. I would rather see the ETI on recordings (automatically or on demand) appear in the tracklist. I have no idea if it is possible, but it would be a more elegant and more logical way to do it.


2013/8/28 lixobix <[hidden email]>
LordSputnik wrote
> So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
> sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
> is done?

Well, it reads as an odd phrase to me:

"Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release"

Relate it to a release, as opposed to what? Recording? But this is part of
the recording definition. Are track titles not entirely related to their
respective releases?

Bonus track should clearly be removed. We all agree on that, so just state
it (better to put it on the ETI guide than here).

Explicit/clean are problematic, because they can be used as marketing info,
e.g. to mark a recording as explicit when there is no clean version. In such
cases, it could hardly be said that explicit is distinguishing anything, it
is just there as a marker for the customer.

Where there are both explicit and clean versions, I regard the explicit
version as the definitive one, as this is the original artist intent. There
is always some extra factor which results in the making of a clean version,
e.g. label decision or merely the artist's desire for airplay. Therefore,
explicit should always be removed at track level, but clean should always be
included, and kept as ETI for recordings.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-2-tp4657255p4657277.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

CallerNo6
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
On 08/27/2013 01:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:

> So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like "(bonus track)" in the
> title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
> the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
>
> My suggestion would be to add this on the end:
>
> "... Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release, such as
> "(bonus track)", should be removed before setting the recording title."
>
> I wouldn't consider stuff like "explicit" to be a problem here, because that
> is probably actual ETI (it differentiates the track from clean tracks of the
> same name).
>
> Can anyone think of any other examples where this might break? Should we be
> more general, and say something like "information not relevant to the
> recording should be removed"?

What other parenthetical thingies are appended to tracklists but do not
belong in the MB-Track title? The other common thing that comes to mind
is "(trad.)" [1] or other composer/writer-related info.


But if the logic of this is:
     * first determine the MB-Track title, removing extraneous information
     * then determine the MB-Recording title based on the MB-Track title

then I agree that the best thing to do is fix the problem in the
MB-Track title guidelines. In which case, I'm sorry that I brought it up :-)

Alex / caller#6

[1]
http://musicbrainz.org/search?page=3&handlearguments=1&query=%28trad.%29&type=track&limit=25

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

LordSputnik
So, we've reached a consensus? No additional changes need to be made to the recording title guideline? Could I have some +1's, just so I know everyone's happy? (I still won't close till Friday evening, because I've said it now)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines #2

tommycrock

+1

On Aug 28, 2013 11:35 PM, "Ben Ockmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, we've reached a consensus? No additional changes need to be made to the recording title guideline? Could I have some +1's, just so I know everyone's happy? (I still won't close till Friday evening, because I've said it now)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style