Bram: Sure, two artists creating unique tracks called "one" would break my system as written earlier; again, I am coming from the tagging perspective so I should have written the idea as: each unique sound is paired with one and only one unique title, where "title" is of course "Artist Name - Track Name". Certainly artist information is requisite to differentiation of unique tracks. In fact, everyone already writes "One [the U2 song]" and "One [the Metallica one]", just reformatted to "U2 - One" and "Metallica - One". But of course in ID3 (and certainly musicbrainz) we can separate the Artist Name and Track Name into separate strings.
As for live tracks, I think there is already an accepted style of adding dates to the main track title. But I am still wondering (like your other two questions), can all information available in musicbrainz (like cover artists) required to establish a track as unique be flattened into ID3 text without creating different names for the same tracks? Can I really use musicbrainz to tag my music, or can I only use my music to update musicbrainz? kuno: Again, my perspective is tagging. I think it would be a good idea to keep an exact transcription of sleeve/cover data, (in fact I am now thinking it would be cool to have musicbrainz store the transcription along with a corrected tag name) but why even correct spelling errors in that case if we have ARs to link them to other tracks? Surely there would be another release with the track without spelling errors. It seems to me that we correct spelling to destroy variant names of the same track, for clarity of the common textual data presented to an end user. If this is the case, it seems that from an unlabelled track "One" and one called "One (album version)" is unclear if I am looking at the same track or not. Again, I am now thinking it would be cool to have a completely uncorrected transcription and some corrected tag name stored, but right now everything seems distributed between transcription and stylistic oversight for tagging purposes, making both perspectives incomplete in the context of musicbrainz. On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Kuno Woudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:56:18PM -0400, Tim wrote: > > Forgive me for beating a 2-years-dead horse, but I have not yet given my > > thoughts on the issue. I believe that if there was any consensus in the > > discussions I have been catching up on, it is all voices are welcome. To > > begin: > > [...] > > I disagree with more or less your whole post. I want the TrackName > field we have in MusicBrainz to match the track name as it appears > on the back cover as closely as possible with only very minor > spelling and/or stylistic fixes. > > -- kuno / warp. > > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
