On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 00:33, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: > On 2011-07-07 16:17, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 19:19, Alex Mauer<ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: >>> I'll give it a shot: >>> "No artist's Recordings tab should list the same title twice with no >>> disambiguation comment. If an artist has multiple recordings with the >>> same title, and any release on which one of them appears lists the title >>> with no Extra Title Information, the disambiguation comment should use >>> the most prevalent Extra Title Information. If no ETI is prevalent, pick >>> one. If no ETI is available, use the best information you have to >>> disambiguate." >> >> This doesn't sound all too crazy. By this standard, I think that >> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779672 is correct but I'm not sure about >> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779686 and >> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779684 > > Agreed. I've cancelled the latter two. > >> Is it your intention that if a recording has been released on a crappy >> compilation with ETI omitted which are on all releases closer to the >> artist, that ETI still be left out of the recording title? How about a >> compilation released by the artists own label? Making this kind of >> distinction kind of tricky. > > Well, without concrete examples based on artists whose recordings have > been fully cleaned up and merged it's a little hard to say for sure. > The only artist I'm that confident of is Jonathan Coulton, and he > doesn't have any weird compilations like you mention, so that doesn't > help. Also, I think the use cases for tagging from various combinations > of (tracklist/recording/recording comment/work/work comment) are yet to > be developed and we may need to wait for that before it can be said for > sure whether this guideline works perfectly or needs some tweaking.
Examples: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/ab0a495f-39da-4479-abad-ba38d91ce1ea http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1c323012-2d65-47ce-a4a6-8a311b690806 http://musicbrainz.org/recording/34c08851-9517-4150-9622-6166d4403d0b http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1c28de94-4fe3-4c95-a64d-0077ea1a85a7 These are just cross-faded slightly different. "crickets and dogs" is something I made up, since on the compilation cover there was no indication that it is different. (I think it may even have the same ISRC.) http://musicbrainz.org/recording/7579eb21-0752-4b82-ae5a-d1436353835b http://musicbrainz.org/recording/42839cb5-d7cd-445f-918d-29fb1538a0cb A similar situation, I had to make something up (“醬油又沒啦”版) just for disambiguation. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/3b2a8867-8e8e-4496-93c0-beeace04fe2f http://musicbrainz.org/recording/634189b1-9195-4372-8053-a02bbcb09a8b Again, "shorter cut" was something I had to pull out of my hat. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/d8a9d8a2-3768-4481-9d6e-f7e81497feda http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1198c4e3-d2b3-45b5-b8a7-8ca8cebe1481 More of the same. These are examples from a single artist that I spent time listening to while cleaning up. This kind of situation is probably more common than one would think. I don't have examples of "crappy compilations", but assume there are plenty of them. -- Philip Jägenstedt _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
