RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

LordSputnik
This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged.

Previous discussion was at:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recording-Titles-and-Related-Stuff-tp4654807.html

The proposal can be seen at:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

Comments and suggestions welcome!

RFC End Time: 2013-08-02, 20:00 UTC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

Frederic Da Vitoria
There is still one thing I think we haven't discussed : disambiguation for several recordings by the same artist. Currently, the proposal does not mention disambiguation or ETI, the user is supposed to deduce it from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles which is much more concerned about releases than about any other type of entity. I am not so much afraid of classical performances (durations of classical re-performances are usually different enough that users should not be tempted to merge) as of re-recordings made around the seventies where an artist would do a low cost recording then re-record it almost identical but with a better (?) sound when the track becomes successful. Durations could be almost identical, so that we could merge truly different material. What about live performances? If we stick to the track style, the recording titles wouldn't mention "live", would they? What about several live performances of the same work?

Even in classical, some common guide about how to disambiguate new performances by identical artists would be nice.

2013/7/26 LordSputnik <[hidden email]>
This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the
recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to
errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles
already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side
effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged.

Previous discussion was at:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recording-Titles-and-Related-Stuff-tp4654807.html

The proposal can be seen at:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

Comments and suggestions welcome!

RFC End Time: 2013-08-02, 20:00 UTC

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
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

tommycrock
Yes. I think there are (at least) two questions here.
1. What ETI do we move to the disambiguation?
2. How should disambiguation comments be entered?

For 1. there seems two obvious strategies to me. Either, we leave ETI with the recording name (assuming that the ETI can be determined using the rules in the proposal) and only enter a disambiguation when live or they need further disambiguation. Or, we move all ETI to the disambiguation (which has the benefit that it's stored in a separate field).

For 2. live performances are usually covered by the existing rules, but I would go further. I've just added a bunch of different recordings for a live performance. This included several sources, it also included different versions of the same song, and the titles aren't disambiguated on the release. I'd propose something like [Performance: ][Version: ][Mix]. So, in the extreme you might have a disambiguation comment like:

live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source mix

This would (I think) work for disambiguating studio recordings too, with each part being optional and only added if necessary.


On 29 July 2013 09:32, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
There is still one thing I think we haven't discussed : disambiguation for several recordings by the same artist. Currently, the proposal does not mention disambiguation or ETI, the user is supposed to deduce it from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles which is much more concerned about releases than about any other type of entity. I am not so much afraid of classical performances (durations of classical re-performances are usually different enough that users should not be tempted to merge) as of re-recordings made around the seventies where an artist would do a low cost recording then re-record it almost identical but with a better (?) sound when the track becomes successful. Durations could be almost identical, so that we could merge truly different material. What about live performances? If we stick to the track style, the recording titles wouldn't mention "live", would they? What about several live performances of the same work?

Even in classical, some common guide about how to disambiguate new performances by identical artists would be nice.

2013/7/26 LordSputnik <[hidden email]>
This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the
recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to
errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles
already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side
effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged.

Previous discussion was at:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recording-Titles-and-Related-Stuff-tp4654807.html

The proposal can be seen at:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

Comments and suggestions welcome!

RFC End Time: 2013-08-02, 20:00 UTC

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
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

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
"Where possible, the official title of the recording should be used. This may be sourced from [...] a musical score"

Huh. Just making sure, but are you sure you didn't mistakenly write "recording" and you meant guidelines for works? Because sourcing recording titles from a score doesn't seem to make any sense to me... for works it would make sense though.

Anyway, you know my opinion for this one is "the current (lack of) guidelines works perfectly well for general titles" - I could see an argument about guidelines for what to do with ETI but this doesn't seem to have any?

Nicolás

_______________________________________________
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

Frederic Da Vitoria
In reply to this post by tommycrock
Sorry, for mixing ETI and disambiguation. Yes of course, using the separate field would be much better.

2013/7/29 Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
Yes. I think there are (at least) two questions here.
1. What ETI do we move to the disambiguation?
2. How should disambiguation comments be entered?

For 1. there seems two obvious strategies to me. Either, we leave ETI with the recording name (assuming that the ETI can be determined using the rules in the proposal) and only enter a disambiguation when live or they need further disambiguation. Or, we move all ETI to the disambiguation (which has the benefit that it's stored in a separate field).

For 2. live performances are usually covered by the existing rules, but I would go further. I've just added a bunch of different recordings for a live performance. This included several sources, it also included different versions of the same song, and the titles aren't disambiguated on the release. I'd propose something like [Performance: ][Version: ][Mix]. So, in the extreme you might have a disambiguation comment like:

live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source mix

This would (I think) work for disambiguating studio recordings too, with each part being optional and only added if necessary.


On 29 July 2013 09:32, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
There is still one thing I think we haven't discussed : disambiguation for several recordings by the same artist. Currently, the proposal does not mention disambiguation or ETI, the user is supposed to deduce it from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles which is much more concerned about releases than about any other type of entity. I am not so much afraid of classical performances (durations of classical re-performances are usually different enough that users should not be tempted to merge) as of re-recordings made around the seventies where an artist would do a low cost recording then re-record it almost identical but with a better (?) sound when the track becomes successful. Durations could be almost identical, so that we could merge truly different material. What about live performances? If we stick to the track style, the recording titles wouldn't mention "live", would they? What about several live performances of the same work?

Even in classical, some common guide about how to disambiguate new performances by identical artists would be nice.

2013/7/26 LordSputnik <[hidden email]>
This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the
recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to
errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles
already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side
effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged.

Previous discussion was at:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recording-Titles-and-Related-Stuff-tp4654807.html

The proposal can be seen at:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

Comments and suggestions welcome!

RFC End Time: 2013-08-02, 20:00 UTC

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
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



--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
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

LordSputnik

Yeah, Tom's already brought up the musical score thing outside mb-style, and I'm going to remove it. It sometimes works for pop music, where you get piano/vocal music released for a whole album, but it's generally not a good thing to use.

I think there's a need for guidance on choosing a title when there are multiple possibilities. The current method of using the track titles is pointless, because it leaves unnecessary errors in the db, and makes it harder to tell whether two recordings ate actually different or just named differently on the source tracks. (Eg. "Calvin Harris remix" vs. "Calvin Harris mix")

As for ETI, I'm leaning towards wanting it to stay in the title, leaving the disambiguation for actual disambiguation rather than differentiation between mixes. Because it would be possible to have something like an artist performing an alternative version of a song live, and with everything in the disambiguation that would be a bit of a mess. I guess I consider stuff like the mix name to be a part of the title itself...

Sorry, for mixing ETI and disambiguation. Yes of course, using the separate field would be much better.

2013/7/29 Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
Yes. I think there are (at least) two questions here.
1. What ETI do we move to the disambiguation?
2. How should disambiguation comments be entered?

For 1. there seems two obvious strategies to me. Either, we leave ETI with the recording name (assuming that the ETI can be determined using the rules in the proposal) and only enter a disambiguation when live or they need further disambiguation. Or, we move all ETI to the disambiguation (which has the benefit that it's stored in a separate field).

For 2. live performances are usually covered by the existing rules, but I would go further. I've just added a bunch of different recordings for a live performance. This included several sources, it also included different versions of the same song, and the titles aren't disambiguated on the release. I'd propose something like [Performance: ][Version: ][Mix]. So, in the extreme you might have a disambiguation comment like:

live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source mix

This would (I think) work for disambiguating studio recordings too, with each part being optional and only added if necessary.


On 29 July 2013 09:32, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
There is still one thing I think we haven't discussed : disambiguation for several recordings by the same artist. Currently, the proposal does not mention disambiguation or ETI, the user is supposed to deduce it from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles which is much more concerned about releases than about any other type of entity. I am not so much afraid of classical performances (durations of classical re-performances are usually different enough that users should not be tempted to merge) as of re-recordings made around the seventies where an artist would do a low cost recording then re-record it almost identical but with a better (?) sound when the track becomes successful. Durations could be almost identical, so that we could merge truly different material. What about live performances? If we stick to the track style, the recording titles wouldn't mention "live", would they? What about several live performances of the same work?

Even in classical, some common guide about how to disambiguate new performances by identical artists would be nice.

2013/7/26 LordSputnik <[hidden email]>
This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the
recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to
errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles
already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side
effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged.

Previous discussion was at:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recording-Titles-and-Related-Stuff-tp4654807.html

The proposal can be seen at:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

Comments and suggestions welcome!

RFC End Time: 2013-08-02, 20:00 UTC

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
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



--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
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

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think there's a need for guidance on choosing a title when there are multiple possibilities. The current method of using the track titles is pointless, because it leaves unnecessary errors in the db, and makes it harder to tell whether two recordings ate actually different or just named differently on the source tracks. (Eg. "Calvin Harris remix" vs. "Calvin Harris mix")

I can see that, but I'm not sure how you'd find an "official" choice, unless you mean mostly stuff like "go with what the album says rather than some compilation"
 

As for ETI, I'm leaning towards wanting it to stay in the title, leaving the disambiguation for actual disambiguation rather than differentiation between mixes. Because it would be possible to have something like an artist performing an alternative version of a song live, and with everything in the disambiguation that would be a bit of a mess. I guess I consider stuff like the mix name to be a part of the title itself...

Agreed, stuff like mix/remix name for named ones does feel like part of the title to me. Stuff like "alternate mix" or "demo", not so sure; I'd probably move at least "demo" to disambiguation.

--
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

tommycrock



On 29 July 2013 13:37, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think there's a need for guidance on choosing a title when there are multiple possibilities. The current method of using the track titles is pointless, because it leaves unnecessary errors in the db, and makes it harder to tell whether two recordings ate actually different or just named differently on the source tracks. (Eg. "Calvin Harris remix" vs. "Calvin Harris mix")

I can see that, but I'm not sure how you'd find an "official" choice, unless you mean mostly stuff like "go with what the album says rather than some compilation"

That's more the way I'd word the guidance I think. Closer to artist intent than official.  I've said this to Ben earlier but:
For example, prefer a release by the artist, while the artist was alive, from their own label over a Various Artists or posthumous release or re-release on a different label
 

As for ETI, I'm leaning towards wanting it to stay in the title, leaving the disambiguation for actual disambiguation rather than differentiation between mixes. Because it would be possible to have something like an artist performing an alternative version of a song live, and with everything in the disambiguation that would be a bit of a mess. I guess I consider stuff like the mix name to be a part of the title itself...

Unless it isn't part of the title on the release presumably?

Agreed, stuff like mix/remix name for named ones does feel like part of the title to me. Stuff like "alternate mix" or "demo", not so sure; I'd probably move at least "demo" to disambiguation.

And does it depend a bit on the source of the ETI? Could we have a list of things like demo, instrumental, original that should normally be disambiguation (if they should be present at all)?

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
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

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by tommycrock
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For 2. live performances are usually covered by the existing rules, but I
> would go further. I've just added a bunch of different recordings for a live
> performance. This included several sources, it also included different
> versions of the same song, and the titles aren't disambiguated on the
> release. I'd propose something like [Performance: ][Version: ][Mix]. So, in
> the extreme you might have a disambiguation comment like:
>
> live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source mix

Some of this can be recorded in the recording-of AR.  The "reprise"
bit I would usually expect to be in the title.  Of course, you say the
release does not disambiguate the titles, so perhaps length can serve
that purpose.  Then "multi-source mix" is about all I would expect to
see in the disambiguation comment.  Is there some other reason to put
all this in the disambiguation comment that I'm not seeing?

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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

LordSputnik
Updated the proposal to remove the bit about musical score and add some stuff about ETI:


_______________________________________________
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

tommycrock
In reply to this post by David Gasaway



On 29 July 2013 19:24, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For 2. live performances are usually covered by the existing rules, but I
> would go further. I've just added a bunch of different recordings for a live
> performance. This included several sources, it also included different
> versions of the same song, and the titles aren't disambiguated on the
> release. I'd propose something like [Performance: ][Version: ][Mix]. So, in
> the extreme you might have a disambiguation comment like:
>
> live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source mix

Some of this can be recorded in the recording-of AR.  

I assume by this you mean the date? but the first bit is a standard live recording disambiguation comment, as I understood it. Perhaps you're only meant to put the date and only add the venue if they played two gigs on the same night, both of which were released, but if that's the case it isn't obvious to me.

The "reprise"
bit I would usually expect to be in the title.  Of course, you say the
release does not disambiguate the titles, so perhaps length can serve
that purpose.

I agree, normally that would be in ETI already, but here it (or anything else) isn't. So, personally I'd prefer it if recordings with the same title and artist were explicitly disambiguated by the disambiguation text. Partly just to be entirely clear but also because the length can vary widely between two tracks with the same recording, particularly with live performances with the choice of which chunk of crowd noise to allocate where, but also with inserted chunks of silence to make 'hidden' tracks on albums.

 Then "multi-source mix" is about all I would expect to
see in the disambiguation comment.  Is there some other reason to put
all this in the disambiguation comment that I'm not seeing?
--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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

David Gasaway
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 29 July 2013 19:24, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source
>> > mix
>>
>> Some of this can be recorded in the recording-of AR.
>
> I assume by this you mean the date? but the first bit is a standard live
> recording disambiguation comment, as I understood it. Perhaps you're only
> meant to put the date and only add the venue if they played two gigs on the
> same night, both of which were released, but if that's the case it isn't
> obvious to me.

I meant "live" and the date.  And yes, venue/location is redundant
unless the artist has played the same song at multiple venues on the
same date.  Venue information is still interesting, mind you, but not
strictly necessary for disambiguation (usually :).  This style may
already be in the guidelines, I don't really know.  I'm just curious
as to the reasoning.

>> The "reprise"
>> bit I would usually expect to be in the title.  Of course, you say the
>> release does not disambiguate the titles, so perhaps length can serve
>> that purpose.
>
> I agree, normally that would be in ETI already, but here it (or anything
> else) isn't. So, personally I'd prefer it if recordings with the same title
> and artist were explicitly disambiguated by the disambiguation text. Partly
> just to be entirely clear but also because the length can vary widely
> between two tracks with the same recording, particularly with live
> performances with the choice of which chunk of crowd noise to allocate
> where, but also with inserted chunks of silence to make 'hidden' tracks on
> albums.

Often, this can be gleaned from other information such as track
sequence.  In the case where a release only includes one performance
of a song in a set list that had the song twice, I don't know how much
having "reprise" in the disambiguation comment really helps identify
which performance you have.  Length certainly could.  That said, I
don't object to recording this information - I'm just not certain how
generally useful it is as a guideline.

Again, I am most interested in learning why it's useful to store this
information in the disambiguation comment (esp. the "live" and date
part, which can be stored in an AR, and go a long way toward
disambiguating the recording in a structured way).

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren



On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:08 PM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 29 July 2013 19:24, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source
>> > mix
>>
>> Some of this can be recorded in the recording-of AR.
>
> I assume by this you mean the date? but the first bit is a standard live
> recording disambiguation comment, as I understood it. Perhaps you're only
> meant to put the date and only add the venue if they played two gigs on the
> same night, both of which were released, but if that's the case it isn't
> obvious to me.

I meant "live" and the date.  And yes, venue/location is redundant
unless the artist has played the same song at multiple venues on the
same date.  Venue information is still interesting, mind you, but not
strictly necessary for disambiguation (usually :).  This style may
already be in the guidelines, I don't really know.  I'm just curious
as to the reasoning.

It is in the guidelines, and I can't find a problem with it - sometimes you know the venue, sometimes the date, and sometimes both, and both pieces are useful for disambiguation for that reason I'd say. We'll be able to store that in relationships once I finish venues in October, but even then I'm unsure whether people will want to remove the info from comments or what, we'll see.
 
--
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

tommycrock
In reply to this post by David Gasaway


On Jul 29, 2013 9:09 PM, "David Gasaway" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 29 July 2013 19:24, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > live, 1995-10-21: The Palace, Hollywood, CA, USA: reprise: multi-source
> >> > mix
> >>
> >> Some of this can be recorded in the recording-of AR.
> >
> > I assume by this you mean the date? but the first bit is a standard live
> > recording disambiguation comment, as I understood it. Perhaps you're only
> > meant to put the date and only add the venue if they played two gigs on the
> > same night, both of which were released, but if that's the case it isn't
> > obvious to me.
>
> I meant "live" and the date.  And yes, venue/location is redundant
> unless the artist has played the same song at multiple venues on the
> same date.  Venue information is still interesting, mind you, but not
> strictly necessary for disambiguation (usually :).  This style may
> already be in the guidelines, I don't really know.  I'm just curious
> as to the reasoning.

Well, I was under the impression it was best practice to state live, date and venue but could be wrong. And perhaps it'll be different once locations can be tied to recordings.

>
> >> The "reprise"
> >> bit I would usually expect to be in the title.  Of course, you say the
> >> release does not disambiguate the titles, so perhaps length can serve
> >> that purpose.
> >
> > I agree, normally that would be in ETI already, but here it (or anything
> > else) isn't. So, personally I'd prefer it if recordings with the same title
> > and artist were explicitly disambiguated by the disambiguation text. Partly
> > just to be entirely clear but also because the length can vary widely
> > between two tracks with the same recording, particularly with live
> > performances with the choice of which chunk of crowd noise to allocate
> > where, but also with inserted chunks of silence to make 'hidden' tracks on
> > albums.
>
> Often, this can be gleaned from other information such as track
> sequence.  In the case where a release only includes one performance
> of a song in a set list that had the song twice, I don't know how much
> having "reprise" in the disambiguation comment really helps identify
> which performance you have.  Length certainly could.  That said, I
> don't object to recording this information - I'm just not certain how
> generally useful it is as a guideline.
>
> Again, I am most interested in learning why it's useful to store this
> information in the disambiguation comment (esp. the "live" and date
> part, which can be stored in an AR, and go a long way toward
> disambiguating the recording in a structured way).

Well, for me, although we should have as much in a well structured format as we can, it helps to be able to know the difference between each recording from a list, without diving into the relationships, if for nothing else than making linking easier. But again, maybe it isn't the way I should be doing it.
I should point out that I haven't actually put in the 'reprise' or whatever bits in yet, because I couldn't figure out what would be good descriptive names, but I plan to eventually

>
> --
> -:-:- David K. Gasaway
> -:-:- Email: [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:08 PM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I meant "live" and the date.  And yes, venue/location is redundant
>> unless the artist has played the same song at multiple venues on the
>> same date.  Venue information is still interesting, mind you, but not
>> strictly necessary for disambiguation (usually :).  This style may
>> already be in the guidelines, I don't really know.  I'm just curious
>> as to the reasoning.
>
>
> It is in the guidelines, and I can't find a problem with it

My only "problem" (and I use that loosely) with any of it is that it's
unstructured and redundant (if also stored in an AR).  And that I
have, apparently, not been following the guidelines. :)

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:08 PM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I meant "live" and the date.  And yes, venue/location is redundant
>> unless the artist has played the same song at multiple venues on the
>> same date.  Venue information is still interesting, mind you, but not
>> strictly necessary for disambiguation (usually :).  This style may
>> already be in the guidelines, I don't really know.  I'm just curious
>> as to the reasoning.
>
>
> It is in the guidelines, and I can't find a problem with it

My only "problem" (and I use that loosely) with any of it is that it's
unstructured and redundant (if also stored in an AR).  And that I
have, apparently, not been following the guidelines. :)

Well, until we do have a venue option, it's the least unstructured way of storing that - annotations are even worse :( Once that changes, we'll see.

The whole thing would be simpler if the script to set multiple disambiguation comments in batch for stuff in a release (which I know exists since someone gave it to me at some point) was public somewhere...

--
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

tommycrock


On Jul 29, 2013 9:36 PM, "Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:08 PM, David Gasaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I meant "live" and the date.  And yes, venue/location is redundant
>> >> unless the artist has played the same song at multiple venues on the
>> >> same date.  Venue information is still interesting, mind you, but not
>> >> strictly necessary for disambiguation (usually :).  This style may
>> >> already be in the guidelines, I don't really know.  I'm just curious
>> >> as to the reasoning.
>> >
>> >
>> > It is in the guidelines, and I can't find a problem with it
>>
>> My only "problem" (and I use that loosely) with any of it is that it's
>> unstructured and redundant (if also stored in an AR).  And that I
>> have, apparently, not been following the guidelines. :)
>
>
> Well, until we do have a venue option, it's the least unstructured way of storing that - annotations are even worse :( Once that changes, we'll see.
>
> The whole thing would be simpler if the script to set multiple disambiguation comments in batch for stuff in a release (which I know exists since someone gave it to me at some point) was public somewhere...
>

I'd love to get my hands on that!

> --
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

th1rtyf0ur
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 09:54:00PM +0100, Tom Crocker wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2013 9:36 PM, "Nicol�s Tamargo de Eguren"
>> The whole thing would be simpler if the script to set multiple
>> disambiguation comments in batch for stuff in a release (which I know
>> exists since someone gave it to me at some point) was public
>> somewhere...
> I'd love to get my hands on that!

Do you mean this one?  https://gist.github.com/jesus2099/3227572

_______________________________________________
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

tommycrock
Thank you! I've been looking for one of those for a long time.


On 30 July 2013 02:16, th1rtyf0ur <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 09:54:00PM +0100, Tom Crocker wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2013 9:36 PM, "Nicol�s Tamargo de Eguren"
>> The whole thing would be simpler if the script to set multiple
>> disambiguation comments in batch for stuff in a release (which I know
>> exists since someone gave it to me at some point) was public
>> somewhere...
> I'd love to get my hands on that!

Do you mean this one?  https://gist.github.com/jesus2099/3227572

_______________________________________________
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

LordSputnik
So, are the proposed guidelines now acceptable? Anything else to change? :)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
1234 ... 8