On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 16:20, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: > On 7/7/2011 3:47 AM, Andii Hughes wrote: >> If it was decided that the comment was to *only* be used for ETI data, >> I could live with it. Though it means a large number of users will >> have to move this data back into the title for tagging, it solves the >> parsing problem of distinguishing ETI from the main title. But that >> only works if the comment is just for that or a new ETI field is >> introduced. If the comment remains an undefined freeform field for >> any text, it shouldn't be used for ETI data as it presents a nightmare >> for those of us who want to keep this useful title information >> distinct from random comments. > > Is there some misunderstanding as to the purpose of the comment field? > > It's not a place to put random information like 'this is the best track > on the album' or something.
The problem is when it's used for disambiguating recordings which didn't have any ETI on the cover. A common case is where one release is missing the intro. It's not at all helpful to see "(with intro)" or "(without intro)" in your tags. The same goes for remasters, you certainly don't want "(2004 remaster)" on every single track of a remaster. So, while not exactly being random information, the comments will contain information which doesn't belong in tags, normalized or otherwise. -- Philip Jägenstedt _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
