On 6/18/06, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mudcrow, if there is an original version of the song "Lift" then the point I was trying to make was that it should be called simply "Lift" and any other remixes or other versions should have the extra attributes appended. If the (LP version) is a different version from the original then cool, call it the (LP version).
In my very first reply I had a single in my hands I got as promo - it sounds really shit and I wouldn't buy an album from this artist if they would make one. However, here's the track list again: 1. "Title (XY remix)" 2. "Title (original mix)" 3. "Title (album mix)" 4. "Title" 5. "Title (AV radio edit)" All versions have different track durations and sounds different, but the essential question is: what is the "original" version? track 2, 3 or 4 ? If I would get the album to compare each version, and find out that track 3 is exactly the same as on this single, then should I strip track 3 title to "Title". But now what's the title of track 4 and who decides how this unlabeld other version should be named? Not to mention the confusion if track 2 would be on the artist album.
I disagree with your concluding remarks: > Also I don't see that how a media player sorts files should have any impact > on how we record data, we are meant to be building an accurate database of > music, not creating user friendly playlists for mp3 players. One of MB's primary uses is for tagging music. If you don't believe me, read this: http://blog.musicbrainz.org/archives/2006/05/future_directio.html In response to Nikki: > And removing (live) makes players think two completely different versions > are the same. Does that not bother you? Players also can't distinguish > between "Some Title" (an album) and "Some Title" (a single), but we don't > change our style guidelines to change this so that people can tag their > files easier because that info is stored in the release type. I am more than happy having live recordings of songs titled the same as the original recording. In fact, it works out great on Last.fm because the stats grow for a specific song whether I play a bootleg recording or the original. I don't care where the song comes from (whether it be an Album or a Single or a Compilation), I am arguing that *identical* songs should be *identically* titled. I think most people would agree with that dream. Even for artists who primarily release singles, I still think that all subsequent *identical* songs should be titled like the original. If that happens to be from a Single release, I don't think it makes a difference. > What about when a live track features on an album and a live release? > The album will have "Some Track (live)" but the live release will have > "Some Track". Those are the same track with two different names too! This is unfortunate, but there isn't much we can do to differentiate the live tracks from the rest of the studio recordings. Anyways, that's all I've got for now... Regards, -Aaron On 6/18/06, mud crow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree totally with removing the album version rule. > > To answer a few points raised. > Identical tracks should always (in theory) all be identically titled, but > in reality this will never happen. A live track will have (live) added to > the title if its released as a track on a studio recorded release, the same > with a demo track. > Now I would expect a track that appears on an album to be the album version, > and I would expect the same track appearing on a single to be the single > version (unless otherwise titled). But if a track appears on a release and > is titled "track" (album version) then it should be titled as such no matter > what it is released on. > > Albums are NOT the primary release of every artist, there are a lot of > dance/techno artists in MB who have never released an album, yet have a huge > discography listed, so suggesting that an album version is the > original/primary version is incorrect. And the single version is not always > an edited version of the album version. > > > Using the single "Lift" by 808 State as an example > This single has been released in multiple versions and include the following > versions of the track Lift: > Lift > Lift (7" mix) > Lift (12" mix) > Lift (Justin Strauss remix) > Lift (Metro mix) > Lift (Lift Up dub) > Lift (7" version) > Lift (Heavy mix) > Lift (LP version) > > Now if we start removing (LP version) from the last track listed, how are > supposed to differenciate between the original Lift and the LP version? > Removing version info from any of these tracks could lead to the wrong PUID > be attached to the wrong version, making PUID identification worthless. > > > > Also I don't see that how a media player sorts files should have any impact > on how we record data, we are meant to be building an accurate database of > music, not creating user friendly playlists for mp3 players. > > Mudcrow > > > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- -Aaron _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
-- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
