When tagging, the way I work (I had written a script in The Godfather
and scraped Allmusic.com, which hasn't worked in a few years, from
lack of motivation to update it) was this way:

%WORK_NAME%: String Quartet No. 2 in F major, Op. 22 (In fact I even
split the Work name and Opus in separate tags)
%MOVEMENT%: III. Andante ma non tanto
%TRACKNAME%: String Quartet No. 2 in F major, Op. 22: III. Andante ma
non tanto (I used this mainly for compatibility reasons when not
playing through Foobar) (Created by merging the work name and movement
within the script at the the time when tags got written)

I was then able to set up columns in Facets in Foobar, and cleanly
list the works, movements, etc...

IMHO, the less overlap and the more granular the date makes for more
accurate and precise information. Also the information can then be
more precisely extracted and used for tagging depending on user
preferences. (Someone that doesn't car about work name, opus or
movements can just use a merged form as trackname and be done with it.

> The downside of it is that if someone wants to use the work name for
> tagging (as I believe there are plans to allow selection of track,
> recording, or work for tagging purposes), then you get partial
> information in your tags.
>
> —Alex Mauer “hawke”

I agree that the search algorithms, Picard, etc would need to be
modified for this to work smoothly.
I also agree that this could be proposed later after this change gets
approved/applied.

Sebastien

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Reply via email to