Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

lixobix
Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown? Was thinking about this earlier (not sure what I've been doing all this time), but couldn't find any guidance in the documentation.

Maybe it's stated somewhere obvious and I've missed it!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Ian McEwen
There's not a specific guideline written down, since mb-style is
an intractable waste of time :P.

Common practice varies a bit by context, but the general thing to follow
is what would be the most common or most useful form. For contexts where
there's a particular standardization this usually corresponds to that
standardization form -- e.g., for a lot of japanese music, the industry
there has a format with four letters, a hyphen, and then a variable
number of numbers. For those, I'd probably always input them as four
capital letters, a hyphen, and then the numbers. On the other hand, most
other places in the world don't have a particular standardization, so
common practice (both in MB and for places like digital stores) is to
use the number as printed. Some labels also impose their own
standardizations which can be considered, though this is less common.

So I'd advise following common practice, and in general trying to enter
the catalog number that is in the form most likely to be useful as a key
into other databases.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 03:48:30PM -0700, lixobix wrote:

> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
> Was thinking about this earlier (not sure what I've been doing all this
> time), but couldn't find any guidance in the documentation.
>
> Maybe it's stated somewhere obvious and I've missed it!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Should-catalog-numbers-be-capitalised-tp4668218.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

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

attachment0 (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by lixobix
On 09/17/2014 05:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
> Was thinking about this earlier (not sure what I've been doing all this
> time), but couldn't find any guidance in the documentation.

I would say they should be entered as shown, and if there are multiple
variants use the most common version. If they are equal, use the one on
the outermost packaging.



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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by lixobix
On 09/17/2014 03:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?

Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
release (assuming there's a difference).

Alex / caller#6

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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Per Starbäck
> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
> release (assuming there's a difference).

Somewhat similar to that I also think it's sensible to normalize
according to how similar catalog numbers are written. That is instead
of a series of releases

  XLP-101
  XLP-102
  xlp-103
  XLP 104
  XLP-105

normalize to "XLP-103" (and "XLP-104"). I know that I several time
have chosen the catalog number that most conforms to other catalog
numbers like that, when there are several versions of the catalog
number printed, at least.

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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

lixobix
Per Starbäck wrote
> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
> release (assuming there's a difference).

Somewhat similar to that I also think it's sensible to normalize
according to how similar catalog numbers are written. That is instead
of a series of releases

  XLP-101
  XLP-102
  xlp-103
  XLP 104
  XLP-105

normalize to "XLP-103" (and "XLP-104"). I know that I several time
have chosen the catalog number that most conforms to other catalog
numbers like that, when there are several versions of the catalog
number printed, at least.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
+1 to that
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Paul Taylor-2
On 20/09/2014 20:44, lixobix wrote:

> Per Starbäck wrote
>>> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
>>> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
>>> release (assuming there's a difference).
>> Somewhat similar to that I also think it's sensible to normalize
>> according to how similar catalog numbers are written. That is instead
>> of a series of releases
>>
>>    XLP-101
>>    XLP-102
>>    xlp-103
>>    XLP 104
>>    XLP-105
>>
>> normalize to "XLP-103" (and "XLP-104"). I know that I several time
>> have chosen the catalog number that most conforms to other catalog
>> numbers like that, when there are several versions of the catalog
>> number printed, at least.
>>
Yes, definently

Paul

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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by Alexander VanValin
On 9/18/2014 10:38 AM, caller#6 wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 03:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
>> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
>
> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
> release (assuming there's a difference).

It seems completely wrong to me to use a source other than the release
for this information. MB is about the releases, not about some website
or printed catalog.



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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Ian McEwen
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:29:41PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:

> On 9/18/2014 10:38 AM, caller#6 wrote:
> > On 09/17/2014 03:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
> >> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
> >
> > Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
> > printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
> > release (assuming there's a difference).
>
> It seems completely wrong to me to use a source other than the release
> for this information. MB is about the releases, not about some website
> or printed catalog.
>
MusicBrainz is about neither, it is a source about music (especially
recorded music), which can sometimes include all of the above. To quote
our own homepage: "The ultimate source of music information", "The
universal lingua franca for music", and "enabling both people and
machines to have meaningful conversations about music". The third is I
think the most important in this case: using some randomly stylized
catalog number contributes nothing to, and can often detract
substantially from meaningful conversations about music, especially for
automated processes.

Which is why, where it applies, using a form that corresponds to the
common usage, or some standardization, is the preferred choice.

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

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

attachment0 (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
On 09/21/2014 10:29 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 9/18/2014 10:38 AM, caller#6 wrote:
>> On 09/17/2014 03:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
>>> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
>> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
>> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
>> release (assuming there's a difference).
> It seems completely wrong to me to use a source other than the release
> for this information. MB is about the releases, not about some website
> or printed catalog.

I don't think MB is fundamentally about releases. I think it's about
showing the interrelatedness of music data.

 From earlier irc discussions (if I remember correctly), you've
mentioned that it's interesting to see how numbering schemes and
formatting within a label may change over time. Sure. That sounds like
an interesting exercise.

Meanwhile, label's presumably store/present their catnos internally in a
way that is meaningful to them. Collate-able, human scannable,
machine-readable or whatever.

Is there a way to satisfy both concerns? Two fields, one for "as on
cover", one for "as in catalog"? (not my preference, but wouldn't be the
end of the world either)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a way to normalize
catnos by machine. e.g. you can't just remove all spaces and dashes. A
dash might be a spacer, might indicate a range or a part number.


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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by Ian McEwen
On 9/21/2014 12:56 PM, Ian McEwen wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:29:41PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> On 9/18/2014 10:38 AM, caller#6 wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2014 03:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
>>>> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
>>>
>>> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
>>> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
>>> release (assuming there's a difference).
>>
>> It seems completely wrong to me to use a source other than the release
>> for this information. MB is about the releases, not about some website
>> or printed catalog.
>>
>
> MusicBrainz is about neither,

OK, fair enough; MusicBrainz *release entities* are about the releases
though, IMO. For an entity that represented the catalog itself or the
label, it's appropriate to normalize; but not for the release.


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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

lixobix
Alex Mauer wrote
On 9/21/2014 12:56 PM, Ian McEwen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:29:41PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> On 9/18/2014 10:38 AM, caller#6 wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2014 03:48 PM, lixobix wrote:
>>>> Should catalog numbers be capitalised, or should they be entered as shown?
>>>
>>> Where possible, I'd prefer to use the form that the label uses in
>>> printed catalogs or on web pages over the form used on an individual
>>> release (assuming there's a difference).
>>
>> It seems completely wrong to me to use a source other than the release
>> for this information. MB is about the releases, not about some website
>> or printed catalog.
>>
>
> MusicBrainz is about neither,

OK, fair enough; MusicBrainz *release entities* are about the releases
though, IMO. For an entity that represented the catalog itself or the
label, it's appropriate to normalize; but not for the release.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
FWIW I think the spacing, dashes etc are the most important part to keep. It should be possible to view a label's releases as sorted by catno. which would not work correctly if there were inconsistencies. I appreciate that this sorting is not possible at present, but hopefully it will be implemented in the future.

Considering that we standardise the capitalisation for artist, release, and title, I don't see why we would then decide that catnos are an exception, and should be added as on the release. That said, I would not object to the 'as on release' approach for all of these, as at least for the first three, we have separate entities that are standardised, i.e. artist (in MB as opposed to as credited on release), release group, and recording. That would be a wider debate though. At present the principle is to standardise, so that principle should apply to catnos.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
On 09/21/2014 06:21 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> OK, fair enough; MusicBrainz *release entities* are about the releases
> though, IMO. For an entity that represented the catalog itself or the
> label, it's appropriate to normalize; but not for the release.

If there's value to storing the as-on-cover catno in a text field (we
already have it in cover art, hopefully), then I agree that no
normalization should be done until we have a way to store both forms
(as-on-cover and normalized).

But I'm not clear on what that value is.

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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by lixobix
On 09/22/2014 09:46 AM, lixobix wrote:
> Considering that we standardise the capitalisation for artist, release, and
> title, I don't see why we would then decide that catnos are an exception,
> and should be added as on the release. … At present the principle is to standardise, so
> that principle should apply to catnos.

Well, even there our standardization is not absolute, as in the example
of http://musicbrainz.org/release/92b36219-760b-4f32-94f7-4e323e6d431d
(from

Classical style says to use the title as printed or works as credited —
no standardization because it leads to confusion when you have hundreds
of releases with the same standardized title.

> It
> should be possible to view a label's releases as sorted by catno. which
> would not work correctly if there were inconsistencies.

Caller#6 wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a way to normalize
> catnos by machine. e.g. you can't just remove all spaces and dashes. A
> dash might be a spacer, might indicate a range or a part number.

Is there any reason we can’t sort by a machine-normalized catno while
still retaining the as-on-cover catno for display?

I’m also not sure that there’s any value in trying to have a normalized
catno, when most any catno 'series' will be scattered over a variety of
MB-labels. Consider http://reports.mbsandbox.org/report/38/view — all of
those are 'Phonogram-associated' catalog numbers, but they’re scattered
across perhaps a score of different imprints.

Then consider
http://musicbrainz.org/label/ce24ab18-1bd6-4293-a486-546d13d6a5e2 (one
of those Phonogram-assocated labels).

How can we usefully sort it in either case, when a single MB-label is
going to have a dozen different catalog number formats, and a single
catalog is going to be spread across a dozen different MB-labels?

I think whatever problem we’re trying to solve, is not going to be
solved by making sure capitalization and spacing matches across
different releases, especially when that also hurts our ability to
distinguish releases.


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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

tommycrock
In reply to this post by Alexander VanValin


On 22 September 2014 17:18, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/21/2014 06:21 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> OK, fair enough; MusicBrainz *release entities* are about the releases
> though, IMO. For an entity that represented the catalog itself or the
> label, it's appropriate to normalize; but not for the release.

If there's value to storing the as-on-cover catno in a text field (we
already have it in cover art, hopefully), then I agree that no
normalization should be done until we have a way to store both forms
(as-on-cover and normalized).

But I'm not clear on what that value is.

I guess where differences in the various ways of presenting the catno would reduce searchability or automated matching, depending on the particular version you had available


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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

lixobix
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
Alex Mauer wrote
On 09/22/2014 09:46 AM, lixobix wrote:
> Considering that we standardise the capitalisation for artist, release, and
> title, I don't see why we would then decide that catnos are an exception,
> and should be added as on the release. … At present the principle is to standardise, so
> that principle should apply to catnos.

Well, even there our standardization is not absolute, as in the example
of http://musicbrainz.org/release/92b36219-760b-4f32-94f7-4e323e6d431d
(from
Well yes, there are exceptions due to artistic intent, but I don't see how that applies to catnos, unless a label is highly consistent in a particular style. If you can give me an example of a label consistently using a lower case style, for example, I might be able to accept your point. But variation of style between releases does not indicate to me that a label intended to use one particular capitalisation over another for any particular release.

Alex Mauer wrote
Classical style says to use the title as printed or works as credited —
no standardization because it leads to confusion when you have hundreds
of releases with the same standardized title.
In relation to tracks or recordings?

Alex Mauer wrote
> It
> should be possible to view a label's releases as sorted by catno. which
> would not work correctly if there were inconsistencies.

Caller#6 wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a way to normalize
> catnos by machine. e.g. you can't just remove all spaces and dashes. A
> dash might be a spacer, might indicate a range or a part number.

Is there any reason we can’t sort by a machine-normalized catno while
still retaining the as-on-cover catno for display?
I'd imagine it could work much live artist as credited / artist in MB works.

Alex Mauer wrote
I’m also not sure that there’s any value in trying to have a normalized
catno, when most any catno 'series' will be scattered over a variety of
MB-labels. Consider http://reports.mbsandbox.org/report/38/view — all of
those are 'Phonogram-associated' catalog numbers, but they’re scattered
across perhaps a score of different imprints.

Then consider
http://musicbrainz.org/label/ce24ab18-1bd6-4293-a486-546d13d6a5e2 (one
of those Phonogram-assocated labels).

How can we usefully sort it in either case, when a single MB-label is
going to have a dozen different catalog number formats, and a single
catalog is going to be spread across a dozen different MB-labels?
True, sorting by catno. would not work for many labels. But for many others, that use fairly consistent patterns, it would:

http://musicbrainz.org/label/46f0f4cd-8aab-4b33-b698-f459faf64190
http://musicbrainz.org/label/73fc1220-d52c-478c-883c-124c1bf38b95
http://musicbrainz.org/label/a539bb1e-f2e1-4b45-9db8-8053841e7503

Just because it doesn't work for some, it is not useless for others.

Alex Mauer wrote
I think whatever problem we’re trying to solve, is not going to be
solved by making sure capitalization and spacing matches across
different releases, especially when that also hurts our ability to
distinguish releases.
Spacing would affect sorting, so standardisation would solve that particular problem. For example, it would allow users to sort all the 4AD 7" in order (AD XXX). Perhaps if any sorting feature were programmed to ignore spacing, that might solve the problem. I agree that capitalisation would not affect this, but that's more about having some uniformity when viewing a label page. I'm not sure what you mean by "hurt[ing] our ability to distinguish releases": Do you mean if spacing was removed, causing 2 catnos. identical but for spacing to be confused?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

lixobix
In reply to this post by tommycrock
tommycrock wrote
On 22 September 2014 17:18, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 09/21/2014 06:21 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> > OK, fair enough; MusicBrainz *release entities* are about the releases
> > though, IMO. For an entity that represented the catalog itself or the
> > label, it's appropriate to normalize; but not for the release.
>
> If there's value to storing the as-on-cover catno in a text field (we
> already have it in cover art, hopefully), then I agree that no
> normalization should be done until we have a way to store both forms
> (as-on-cover and normalized).
>
> But I'm not clear on what that value is.
>

I guess where differences in the various ways of presenting the catno would
reduce searchability or automated matching, depending on the particular
version you had available

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
If I search for "WAP23", I get:

http://musicbrainz.org/release/0e7fb298-5286-4fb6-9cc1-2936799fddd5

If I search for "WAP 23", I get nothing.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by lixobix
On 09/22/2014 01:21 PM, lixobix wrote:
> I'd imagine it could work much like artist as credited / artist in MB works.

I was thinking like that but without the explicit user-entry of the
credit, yes. Just sort by something derived from the actual listed
catno. (whether that’s simply omitting spaces and punctuation, or
something more complex, I don’t know. Maybe a per-label setting with
some common presets?)

> True, sorting by catno. would not work for many labels. But for many others,
> that use fairly consistent patterns, it would:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/label/46f0f4cd-8aab-4b33-b698-f459faf64190
> http://musicbrainz.org/label/73fc1220-d52c-478c-883c-124c1bf38b95
> http://musicbrainz.org/label/a539bb1e-f2e1-4b45-9db8-8053841e7503
>
> Just because it doesn't work for some, it is not useless for others.

http://musicbrainz.org/label/73fc1220-d52c-478c-883c-124c1bf38b95 and
http://musicbrainz.org/label/a539bb1e-f2e1-4b45-9db8-8053841e7503 are
not useful, unless you are trying to group by medium type instead of
sorting.

That’s kind of the point I was trying to make, actually. It’s way more
complicated (and label-specific) than just “let’s normalize the
capitalization”.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "hurt[ing] our ability to distinguish
> releases": Do you mean if spacing was removed, causing 2 catnos. identical
> but for spacing to be confused?

I mean that if one release says 'RHRCD 256' and another (say, a reissue)
says 'RHR CD 256', and the label's website says “rhrcd-256”, then trying
to figure out which release is actually in hand is made harder when
they’re all “standardized” in some way.

IMO the way to fix that would be to display them all as entered, but
internally sort them by something that partially ignores the spacing and
punctuation (so they would all be sorted as “RHRCD256”

I guess I don’t get why we’d want to standardize the capitalization;
it’s a tiny, tiny cosmetic difference which will have absolutely no
impact on the mess that sorting is currently, and could potentially
cause problems for people. If we want to fix sorting, we have to figure
out what we want from the sorted list. I don’t think 'group by medium
type' is what we want; I know I don’t.


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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by lixobix
On 09/22/2014 11:27 AM, lixobix wrote:

> On 22 September 2014 17:18, caller#6 wrote:
>
>
>
>> If there's value to storing the as-on-cover catno in a text field (we
>> already have it in cover art, hopefully), then I agree that no
>> normalization should be done until we have a way to store both forms
>> (as-on-cover and normalized).
>>
>> But I'm not clear on what that value is.
> If I search for "WAP23", I get:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/0e7fb298-5286-4fb6-9cc1-2936799fddd5
>
> If I search for "WAP 23", I get nothing.


Isn't that something to be fixed in the search engine?

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

Re: Should catalog numbers be capitalised?

David Gasaway
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Classical style says to use the title as printed or works as credited —
> no standardization because it leads to confusion when you have hundreds
> of releases with the same standardized title.

Off-topic, but where is this stated in classical style?

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

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
12
Loading...