2007/1/23, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/23/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/1/23, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > > Shouldn't we recommend to put the actual name of the release in the > > > Annotation? > > > > Erm... assuming the release actually has a discernable name, other > > than the titles of the included works. I would have assumed that the > > relatively few classical titles with a clear release name would have > > that as the release name, and this convention would be used only for > > the many that don't. > > I don't like exceptions (as I said, I believe we should keep the rules > as simple as possible). But for some releases (especially classical > compilations), it could be more practical than using a list of the > works as release title! > This discussion doesn't apply to classical compilations that feature "random" parts from different works. The releases I meant are the classical albums that usually feature a couple complete works (possibly spread over multiple discs). (Just clarifying)
Could you clarify the clarification? With an example, for example. -- Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
