On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hell...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aaron Cooper wrote: >> I think the book title is an important piece of information - much >> like the work title in classical music. > > Sure. > > We always put the work and >> then the movement in classical track titles even if there is only one >> work on a release. > > As I'm sure you remember I started a discussion about this last year > here on mb-style[1]. My view: This is redundant, makes for unwieldy > titles which even are hard to read for short tracks, and I don't think > it looks good. > > For a post later in that thread I did some checking and found that the > include-workname-even-for-opera-and-similar-practice was not common > earlier, but became more common during 2007. The reason for it becoming > more common was discussions om mb-style starting from the assumption > that we did not have Works.
That's still how we do it in the classical world and how the examples are in the CSG. Because we include work names now, I think it would be appropriate to include book names in audiobook track titles. If we decide elsewhere that including the work name is now extraneous then I could see us making an identical change to audiobooks (dropping the book name). >> I think we should apply the similar rule here. > > One reason for not doing so: Audiobooks differ from classical recordings > by rarely having more than one work included. > > For those who really want it in, isn't it possible to have Picard add > the release title to the track title? Making Picard do this would be a pain in the butt as you'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis for the rare occasions where the release title is not the book title or there are multiple books in the release title. -cooperaa _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
