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
