2007/1/23, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/22/07, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> >> and so on. In the interests of brevity I'd be happy to stop including
> >> the key in the ReleaseTitle, but maintain it in the TrackTitle, with
> >> the Op. / catalogue number too.
> >
> > Agreed, track titles should always include work name/number, key, and
> > catalog number
> >
>
> If we are trying to get a consistent release title style guideline,
> can't we use this as an opportunity to get some cleaner track titles?
> Take e.g. Tchaikovsky's 'The Sleeping Beauty' [1], I still have to clean
> up the track titles but I'm reluctant to include 'Op. 66' in each track
> title. It's the same for all tracks on both discs and it seems overkill
> to include it for each track. What about an exception to the rule which
> states that when the work number goes for all tracks on a release, you
> only have to include it in the release title and not each individual
> track title?
I don't think we should make an exception in this case. Believe it or
not (and maybe it's just me), but I'll often search either my music
player or MusicBrainz for a certain opus number, in which case I
expect all tracks with that number to pop up. Also, I rarely think
that the opus number belongs in the release title.
I agree with Andrew. We must tend towards consistent rules if we don't
want to lose classical users because of the complexity. So let's make
as few exceptions as possible and keep rules as simple as possible.
For classical (not opera which has special rules), I think we should
put catalogue numbers always or never. I guess we all agree it should
be always.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
