On Thu, 12 May 2011 19:51:06 +0200, caller#6 <meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 05/12/2011 08:57 AM, caller#6 wrote: >> >> On 05/12/2011 08:03 AM, symphonick wrote: >>> Hi list. >>> I'd like to know your views on CSG for track/recording names, so I've >>> started a research page based on the old proposal& my own >>> interpretation: >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick:Unofficial_CSG_track_names&; >>> I'd be happy if you could check it out. >>> >>> I'll continue to add (more complex) examples, but basically: what do >>> you >>> think must be standardized in track names? (not Works - that's a >>> different >>> discussion). >>> (answer here or in the discussion page) >>> Thanks. >>> /symphonick >> My gut feeling is that Track Title and Recording Title should be handled >> differently, as follows: >> >> Track Titles should get as little "normalization" as possible/practical. >> >> Recording Titles (on the other hand) should be normalized much as Work >> Titles will be. The difference (in my mind) is that a Recording Title >> will reflect the particulars of that Recording, e.g. >> orchestration/instrumentation/transposition. >> >> Does that makes sense? >> Alex / caller#6 > Building on that difference, I'd say that it's more important to get > consensus on CSG for Track Titles than it is to work on the details of > Recordings and Works. > > That is, in the short term editors will need to be able to add new > releases, which means they'll need: > > CSG for Release and Release Group Title > CSG for Release Artist > CSG for Track Title > > I won't be able to work on this much until Sunday, I'm afraid. > > best, > Alex / caller#6 > +1 I think the old artist proposal was OK? _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
