pre-RFC: Track and release titles

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

pre-RFC: Track and release titles

tommycrock
In the recording titles discussion, it seemed to me there was need for some clarification around what track titles should be. I think there is a fair bit that can be said on both track and release titles, and therefore the best thing to do would be to have specific sections on each, which describe what information to try and source and refer to the general style and title rules. That will make it easier to think about the specifics of each. The general rules can then probably be slimmed down a little bit and some reorganising can be done. My current guess is that there will be a page each for track titles and release titles with a very short summary (couple of sentences) of each on the Release page that links to those two.

Before we get too much into the details, does anyone think this is a ridiculous idea? Would it be better to just amend the title pages to incorporate everything we want to say about that and have something general about where to source titles from, etc.? Or more positively, who thinks it's a good idea :-)

When we do get into the details, we should probably try and come up with some guidance about digital releases, given the recent controversy over the MW3 soundtrack (although that wasn't just about it being digital).

Anyway, to see the kind of thing I'm thinking about:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Tommycrock/Proposal/Track_Title
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Tommycrock/Proposal/Release_Title

The release title stuff is largely ripped off from CSG and discogs. You'll notice these are incomplete and aren't very similar in approach. Hopefully that won't be the case by the time we're done.

Say what you think!
Thanks


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

Re: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/9/2 Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
In the recording titles discussion, it seemed to me there was need for some clarification around what track titles should be. I think there is a fair bit that can be said on both track and release titles, and therefore the best thing to do would be to have specific sections on each, which describe what information to try and source and refer to the general style and title rules. That will make it easier to think about the specifics of each. The general rules can then probably be slimmed down a little bit and some reorganising can be done. My current guess is that there will be a page each for track titles and release titles with a very short summary (couple of sentences) of each on the Release page that links to those two.

Before we get too much into the details, does anyone think this is a ridiculous idea? Would it be better to just amend the title pages to incorporate everything we want to say about that and have something general about where to source titles from, etc.? Or more positively, who thinks it's a good idea :-)

When we do get into the details, we should probably try and come up with some guidance about digital releases, given the recent controversy over the MW3 soundtrack (although that wasn't just about it being digital).

Anyway, to see the kind of thing I'm thinking about:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Tommycrock/Proposal/Track_Title
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Tommycrock/Proposal/Release_Title

The release title stuff is largely ripped off from CSG and discogs. You'll notice these are incomplete and aren't very similar in approach. Hopefully that won't be the case by the time we're done.

Say what you think!
Thanks

I believe it is a good idea. I can't give a good argument apart from the fact that it matches more my way of thinking.

--
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: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

LordSputnik

I think we should write the guidance first then decide how to structure it.

Currently I just use the track names from the release, and the release title from the spine or front, fixing any obviously unintentional errors.

So I'd hope a guideline would deal with the best place to source these titles from, and also what to do where it's not clear if errors are intentional or unintentional.


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

Re: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

tommycrock

I guess I was partly checking if people think there's a need for quite a lot of new guidance or just tinkering around the edges - as a starting point.

We also need to agree if we are treating track titles on bootlegs like any other track.

On Sep 3, 2013 10:25 AM, "Ben Ockmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think we should write the guidance first then decide how to structure it.

Currently I just use the track names from the release, and the release title from the spine or front, fixing any obviously unintentional errors.

So I'd hope a guideline would deal with the best place to source these titles from, and also what to do where it's not clear if errors are intentional or unintentional.


_______________________________________________
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: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

lixobix
In reply to this post by tommycrock
1) Since you are incorporating and modifying sections from CSG, would that render those sections obsolete? It seems that the gap between classical/non-classical style is closing in most respects, so amalgamating the relevant sections would be an idea.

2) I would suggest we have one general page for titles, which includes all the information relevant to all entities (capitalisation etc.), and a sources guide. Then have pages for each entity, containing all the title rules specific to those entities, e.g. "...designation such as EP or E.P., 7", CD, LP..." would be on the release page.

3) I would incorporate http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information into the above pages.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

symphonick
1) not unless we can have the same page for both classical & non-classical. maybe look into merging the pages in a later step, if possible?

2) capitalisation, especially regarding classical, is language-dependent


2013/9/3 lixobix <[hidden email]>
1) Since you are incorporating and modifying sections from CSG, would that
render those sections obsolete? It seems that the gap between
classical/non-classical style is closing in most respects, so amalgamating
the relevant sections would be an idea.

2) I would suggest we have one general page for titles, which includes all
the information relevant to all entities (capitalisation etc.), and a
sources guide. Then have pages for each entity, containing all the title
rules specific to those entities, e.g. "...designation such as EP or E.P.,
7", CD, LP..." would be on the release page.

3) I would incorporate
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information into the
above pages.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/pre-RFC-Track-and-release-titles-tp4657385p4657428.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



--

/symphonick

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

Re: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

tommycrock



On 3 September 2013 16:40, symphonick <[hidden email]> wrote:
1) not unless we can have the same page for both classical & non-classical. maybe look into merging the pages in a later step, if possible?

Yeah, we'll see how close they end up I guess. I think ideally the release title guidelines would merge because I didn't see anything in the CSG page that looked like it wouldn't fit in general
 

2) capitalisation, especially regarding classical, is language-dependent

I hadn't spotted those CSG capitalisation guides (don't worry, I haven't been editing classical stuff). Good to know. 
 


--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
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: pre-RFC: Track and release titles

lixobix
In reply to this post by symphonick
symphonick wrote
1) not unless we can have the same page for both classical & non-classical.
maybe look into merging the pages in a later step, if possible?

2) capitalisation, especially regarding classical, is language-dependent


2013/9/3 lixobix <[hidden email]>

> 1) Since you are incorporating and modifying sections from CSG, would that
> render those sections obsolete? It seems that the gap between
> classical/non-classical style is closing in most respects, so amalgamating
> the relevant sections would be an idea.
>
> 2) I would suggest we have one general page for titles, which includes all
> the information relevant to all entities (capitalisation etc.), and a
> sources guide. Then have pages for each entity, containing all the title
> rules specific to those entities, e.g. "...designation such as EP or E.P.,
> 7", CD, LP..." would be on the release page.
>
> 3) I would incorporate
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information into the
> above pages.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/pre-RFC-Track-and-release-titles-tp4657385p4657428.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
>



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
1) I think we could have the page in the main guide, then the CSG could reference that, whilst stating any differences. But lets see how it goes. I just think it's messy to have the text repeated on different pages.

2) The specific capitalisation guides should be on separate pages, but here we just need a brief outline of the English one, with links to in-depth guides.