On 29/06/11 13:45, Ryan Torchia wrote: > > This conversation got derailed when the issues of charts got brought > in. Your terse dismissal of CD single sets as nothing more than a tool > to manipulate the charts struck me as way too narrow and cynical. But > you know, it really doesn't make a difference here, so I'll concede > the argument. Yes, fine: labels used the format in hopes of gaining > higher ratings and selling more product. When /isn't/ that the case? > Labels are in it for the money, and they have set formats, structures, > processes and strategies that serve no purpose other than to help them > make /more/ money, and (with very few exceptions) artist have to work > within that structure. And the good ones do, and history is full of > great works of art that were created within functional boundaries. >
Moi? Cynical? Heaven forfend. I'm on the side of the OP who wrote "The two-part sold-separately CD single, what a... just... wonderful... idea that was. Fans love these because they can pay for two CDs and get a half-CD's worth of music. [...] They plaster the first disc with reminders that it's only half of a set, like having "CD1" in large typeface on the cover and printing "This is disc ONE of a TWO disc set" just below. (Then once everyone's convinced that Disc 1 on its own is worthless crap and you absolutely have to have BOTH discs of the SET to be happy, they'll press a third as many copies of Disc 2 as they did of Disc 1.)" ;) > > Having a label tell say they want to put out a CD single set doesn't > preclude the artist from putting thought into the format and how the > discs relate to each other. The set has a title track, so what? Just > because the accountants and statisticians have tunnel vision for the > hit single doesn't mean the artist does too. We've seen a couple sets > already where the discs combine to create an entire live album; a case > where the hit single serves little purpose other than to provide an > opportunity to release something the label wouldn't have thought > important enough to be released on its own. And sure, the chart rules > might consider an edited track and a remix and a live version to be > 'substantially' the same track, but do you think people buying the CDs > equally indifferent? I'm pretty sure casual fans are loosing closely > to make sure they're getting CD1, while major fans are are calling > stores asking specifically for "Some Title, CD 2". I'm sure there are cases where the artists have cared enough to put together a really excellent set of discs. I don't think that makes the disc numbers anything more than order indicators. > > Two things: > 1) If the goal of having CD1/CD2 was to sell more units and push the > single up the charts, what good does splitting the single do if they > /didn't/ expect people to buy them both? > 2) I probably should have been more clear in pointing out that the > Discogs link isn't "Now It's On." Could you explain why the number on > the linked CD clearly isn't part of the title? 1) I think they do expect people to buy them both, apart from the cynical move where they press less of disc 2 than disc 1... but who would suggest that level of evil! The last time I was swayed to buy one, Domino were offering two 7″ and one CD singles as a block purchase. 2) Because the number is only to differentiate between the two cds in the 2 cd, 7″ and 12″ formats for the “Karma Police” single. The other releases in the same group aren't numbered in any way at all. > > I don't know if the colors showed up, but the (CD 1) subtitles are > black rather than blue like the rest of the tiles, so they really > stand out badly. The format requires an unnecessary set of parentheses > and add clutter to legitimate comments. Plus, now that NGS has removed > disc numbers in multidisc sets, these will be the only releases on the > site that are enumerated in parenthesis, so they'll seem even more out > of place. The colours showed up, but I find the black text more noticeable. I think you'll find more parentheses appearing though... the comment field is far more common and visible under NGS - it's just currently empty in most cases (other than band names really). > > But besides that, I think my complaint is that we've got a great > standard in place already for handling series numbering. Why would we > want to toss that out and impose an inferior one when there's no > logical reason or benefit to doing so? We treat artist's intent like a > sacred cow, except in this one situation where we've universally > decided that the numbers on these discs are meaningless remnants of > greed and apathy. > I wouldn't say inferior. The comment field is there is separate identically named entities. Having it not tied to whether the editor remembered to use the correct text formatting within another field is, I would say, a better method. We don't really treat artist intent that highly. People often claim it when they're doing something off-style, but usually the requirement of proof is never supplied (and, in one case, even when asking the band, the band turned out to be wrong). In this case, I seriously doubt there's a case to be made that every dual-CD using band intentionally added "cd1" or "cd2" to the title of the CDs. Further, I can't see much mileage in the idea that one or two bands decided that, whilst numbering the CDs was not uncommon, they specifically wanted their CDs retitled with the unremarkable "cd1" or "cd2", with the 7″, 12″ or cassingle left unchanged. Moreover, you're talking about standardising on "Disc N" when "cdN" would be the artist intent in the Karma Police case. - Si _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
