On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Michael Wiencek <mwt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nicolás, I have a few comments about the guideline. For [untitled] tracks > it states: > "These tracks are clearly not given a name on the release (album sleeve and > liner notes) they appear on." > > I think this sentence is vague enough to apply to [unknown] tracks, because > they aren't given a name on the sleeve or liner notes either. > > Maybe it can be said that [untitled] tracks are often represented by a blank > space in the track listing: > http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1125103 (track 1) > http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=12261 (track 6) > http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=368236 (track 1) > > The argument is that if those tracks were titled, their titles would have > been printed. Yet someone might make the same argument for hidden tracks. A > difference I see is that [untitled] tracks are referenced in some way on the > sleeve. Is that fair to say, or can anyone think of counter-examples?
Would "These tracks are clearly shown to lack a title [or 'to have no title'] on the release (album sleeve and liner notes) they appear on" solve this? > I'm wondering how the following case is considered under the guideline: > http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=367358 (track 1) > http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=182893 (track 12) > The literal word "Untitled" is printed in the track listing. Were these > tracks "clearly not given a name"? Is it even possible to know if an artist > really wanted to name their song "Untitled"? ;) There was a related mailing > list discussion in 2005 that didn't have many replies.[1] Hmmm. Currently, it is not considered, or not fully. I'd see how the use of any of the options could be argued for with the current wording, so a specific indication should be added about it. Style list, input is needed about what that indication should be: "Untitled" or "[untitled]"? (I like "Untitled" myself a bit more, but can be convinced to choose either option. We need to choose one though.) > Just a few other comments regarding point #1 under "Untitled tracks": > "The recording and work used for the track will normally be also [untitled], > but if the track is given an official name in another release, the recording > and work can be updated." > > This is also vague to me. > > - It says the recording and work can be updated, but doesn't mention that the > track (tracklist) should be. Is this intentional? Fully so. AFAIK NGS tracklists are supposed to represent what is on the release: we no longer need to make the track titles standard, as recordings and works already join all those tracks together. > - Doesn't this also apply to [unknown] tracks? I think this should be moved > to its own small section which also mentions [unknown]. I wouldn't say so. As [unknown] is supposed to be a temporary status, I think it the tracklist should change too to in this case. > - When would the recording/work not also be [untitled]/[unknown]? It later > states "the recording and work can be updated." When shouldn't it be updated? Heh, agreed. Should probably read "the recording and work should be updated". > Work–Recording–Track title differences and inheritance seems like a more > general issue that should have a separate, more general guideline (probably > combining/superseding Consistent Original Data). So I wouldn't object if this > point was removed altogether. > > I may notice other things to nitpick on, but most of it reads well. :) > > Michael(bitmap) > > [1] > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-January/007586.html > > On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > >> This RFC will expire on Feb 1st, 20:30 CET. >> >> Our current Untitled Track Style (including both [untitled] and >> [unknown]) is confusing and not very practical. ( >> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Untitled_Track_Style ) >> It clashes with the Guess Case configuration on the matter of hidden >> tracks ([untitled] according to the guideline, [unknown] with Guess >> Case), fails to clearly set a difference between an untitled track and >> an unknown track, and causes situations as in this recent forum >> thread, where 3 people (myself being one) made 3 different readings of >> the guideline: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=2549 >> >> I think this proposal makes the [unknown] / [untitled] difference >> quite clear, and that by merging all the cases of "untitled" tracks >> into one, it becomes simpler too, while being equally comprehensive. >> >> [untitled] is always to be kept in the NGS tracklists where it >> appears: if a name is given later, it can be changed at the >> *recording* and *work* level. This is present on the proposal, >> although it shouldn't be transferred to the guideline (if it passes) >> until NGS ships, for obvious reasons. >> >> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Untitled_Track_Style_update >> -- >> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
