(First, sorry that Mail.app was broken and didn't wrap my original message. I've switched to Thunderbird for now.)
On 1/25/11 9:38 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > 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? > Yeah, I think that's a decent improvement without making the sentence more verbose; hidden tracks are not "shown" period, so it reads better to me. >> 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.) > The 2005 thread I linked to hinted that sticking with "Untitled" might be safer (even if not always correct). I'm sympathetic to that reasoning. I'm wondering if these should be decided case-by-case through edit notes, but any case of this would seem equally ambiguous to me, so I don't know if that would work out... >> 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. > That's how I interpreted it, but I wasn't sure of the extent to which we'll be respecting what's printed on a release. I'd agree we should respect title variations at least, but I didn't really consider the lack of a title as being a variation. >> - 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. > I read it as applying with a larger scope. e.g. If an [untitled] track is later released with a title, we should update the recording/work, but not the tracklist where it was untitled. If we find the title of an [unknown] track, we should update all three. That's how I read the sentence as applying to [unknown]. >> - 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". > Agreed, that clears up the confusion for me there. :) >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
