On 2 April 2012 22:17, Philip Jägenstedt <phi...@foolip.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 22:58, lorenz pressler <l...@gmx.at> wrote: >> Am 02.04.2012, 22:36 Uhr, schrieb Philip Jägenstedt <phi...@foolip.org>: >> >>> http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16971109 reminded me of this issue, which >>> I haven't understood since the introduction of NGS. >>> >>> One the one hand, disambiguation comments aren't used for tagging >>> (right?) so moving information there would produce some broken tags >>> for people who use normalized tagging in Picard. On the other hand, >>> disambiguation comments are shown in parenthesis after the titles >>> everywhere on the website, which really invites moving some things in >>> (parenthesis) to the disambiguation comments to make things look nice >>> and tidy. >> >> afair: >> recording -> disamig. comment only >> tracklist -> if its on the tracklist then it should be included in the >> trackname > > Is this documented anywhere, and is it how everyone is actually > editing? Is no one using the recording-level data for tagging, or are > you including disambiguation comments in all files to, well, > disambiguate?
The recording titles, not track titles, are what the NGS web service returns, so I'm using those for tagging. The disambiguation is for disambiguating recordings with the same title in the database. It is NOT for extra track information (ETI). Some examples of how I see things (and hopefully others) should clarify things, and maybe we can write this up if we all agree. If a track title is of the form: "X (Y remix)" that should be the recording title and the "Y remix" part should not be moved to disambiguation. I would similarly add things like "(radio edit)", "(clean edit)", etc. to this list i.e. noticeable changes (in length and/or lyric content) after the original version. Where I think things get fuzzy is if you have a title X on an album, but a compilation lists "X (album version)" (i.e. there is not cross-release agreement). Here I think "(album version)" is superfluous as its the 'standard' version. Thus I would expect the title to be X with no disambiguation. Cases which I think warrant disambiguation but not in-title ETI are remasters and appearances in DJ mixes. For example, a compilation may list a track as "X (2006 remaster)". This is fairly rare though; most don't include this information and instead it can usually be derived from the album it appears on and/or the ISRC. To me this warrants disambiguation inclusion only, as you don't want the original album to produce every track with "(2006 remaster)" appended to the end (or worse, one or two of them because they happen to appear on a compilation). I realise this may be a little controversial, but it does make sense in practice. Disambiguation is needed to stop tracks being merged in the DB but serve no use outside. For example, a recording with the same title on a release but which actually segues into another track at either end needs marking in the DB so it isn't merged with the original version (there are a mass of these for DJ mixes). There is also the odd case where a track title is reused by an artist -- Madonna's "Forbidden Love" springs to mind -- where you don't want to add anything to the track title but you don't want people merging two completely different songs. Thoughts? > > -- > Philip Jägenstedt > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Andii :-) _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
