On 6/18/06, Nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (2) It's reasonable to expect (though here I'm sure there are
> disagreements) that a song have a single name (by a song I mean the
> exact same song, not remixes, edits, etc.), no matter where it
> appears. So at least some people (me included, I'd expect a lot
> others) want to have that song tagged the same, no matter where it is
> in the collection. The only way to do that _with our current taggers_
> is to have the same title, meaning we must remove the "album version"
> _note_ on singles.
It also means putting (live) onto live albums. Do you support adding that
to every single track of a live album for consistency?
If we decided to, sure why not? Then we would know the live songs are
(live), but it isn't super critical because in most cases, the live
recording is of the original recording. One exception to this is when
a band plays only a portion of the original recording, like Metallica
only playing the first half of Master of Puppets. In this case, most
people call the song "Master of Puppets (jam/excerpt/etc)" or even a
fan-given name of the Master of Puppets/Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
medley... which is escaping me at the moment.
> By the way, we do have the
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to clarify the
> identical tracks.
See, we can link identical tracks together, so we don't need the name to be
the same as we can already store the fact they're identical. This argument
is used in other places, so why can't it apply here? It just seems to be a
load of whining about "My tags! They're not the same!" which applies to
other things too but those aren't changed to make tagging easier because we
simply state "MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging".
At this time linking tracks has no practical application and seems
useless to me. I do hope that we will be able to use this information
in the ARs some day, but I don't want to have to go through all of
Metallica's bootlegs and say "X is a live recording of Y" just to have
that relationship - I don't think anyone wants to!
It's obvious that MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging because we wouldn't be
storing all this information in relationships if it were. Picard 0.8, I
believe, will be when the tagger script is implemented, so then people will
be able to automatically strip (album version) if they want, but you can't
automatically add (album version) because there's no context.
If the album version is not the original recording, then by all means
- append (album version). In the "St. Anger" single there is an
edited version of the track and the original/album version. The cover
may say (album version) but as you said above, we can say "X is the
original recording of Y" and drop the (album version) from the title.
I suppose if we REALLY wanted to make things confusing we could also
drop the (edited version) information and throw that into an AR as
well! Yipes!
Regards,
--
-Aaron
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
