On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard <pero...@stud.ntnu.no> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:27:20 +0100, Bogdan Butnaru <bogd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Paul C. Bryan <em...@pbryan.net> wrote: >>> I'm naively going to ask the question, why not use numbering if the book >>> does, otherwise not? >> >> Exactly my point. Since there are books that don't have chapters at >> all, and books that have quite a complicated hierarchical structure, >> and also there are audiobooks that follow the book and (probably) some >> that don't, we should pretty much say: > > Agreed. Audiobooks are far too diverse for chapter styling to work well, not > to mention that the threshold for submissions is that much higher. > >> http://musicbrainz.org/release/b38f3b3b-7f70-421d-8328-27a7562724e8.html > > An interesting release actually, which brings me to somewhat of a tangent. > Personally I think homemade splits are a great idea considering many > audiobooks, but I think they need to be regulated somewhat. Something similar > to transl(iter)ation springs to mind. The important thing is that we don't > accept all kinds of different cuts for the same release, and also that we get > an AR so it can actually be used for something.
Not that I disagree, but note that this particular release was on cassette, which means that it's not exactly clear if it's a "homemade" split or not. (Unless the sleeve would indicate "track" times (I've no idea if it does in this case), and even then for analog tape the timing is only approximative.) -- Bogdan Butnaru _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
