Re: [mb-style] album version, original mix, etc.
What about Metallica and U2 both having a song called one, should we add [the U2 song] and [the Metallica song] in the track title? Or when Johhny Cash covered the the U2 one, should we add that explicitly to the track title? And with live versions, should we enter the date of the performance to the track title? and if a song has been performed multiple times on one day also the approximate time? In my opinion, this is what we have AR's for, a track title is what it is, the name of a song. We have the MB-ID as an exact identifier, and using AR's we can find out which other tracks contain the exact same music. Bram / jongetje Tim schreef: Forgive me for beating a 2-years-dead horse, but I have not yet given my thoughts on the issue. I believe that if there was any consensus in the discussions I have been catching up on, it is all voices are welcome. To begin: I believe that unique tracks should have unique track names across all releases. This seems to be essential for distinguishability of tracks by their track names, effectively describing any differences in sound (ie unique tracks) with unique, specific track name information. (Note I am not using the term TrackName; by track name I mean everything after the artist name.) I also believe the converse: that unique track names should be paired with unique tracks across all releases. There should be no doubt as to what sound (unique track) one is referring to given a track name. To summarize: every unique track should be paired with one and only one unique track name. Each name has one sound and each sound has one name. Therefore, it follows that if a physical release lists Funky Shit (album version) in its tracklisting, and this recording is the exact same as Funky Shit on the actual album that album version is referring to, or whatever is chosen to be the default or main version, (that is, if tracks labelled as Funky Shit (original mix) and Funky Shit (album version) are non-unique, identical sounds), then their names should be somehow merged conform to the above one-to-one rule (ie, they should both be labelled Funky Shit; this is one pair.) Similarly, if two physical releases both list Funky Shit names but they actually contain unique sounds, then these unique sounds should be given unique names, overidding the tracklisting just as we would for a spelling mistake. If one Funky Shit comes from a single release and the other from a full album, then the first should be called Funky Shit (single edit) (or something similar), assuming we have chosen the sound from the album to be worthy of the default, base name (no extra parentheticals) as we normally do. (Or, if the single contains the default sound, then its tracklisting should say Funky Shit, and the album's listing should say Funky Shit (album version) Therefore, I address all who favor full inclusion (or full removal) of album version and similar ExtraTitleInformation by responding to a list of arguments from an earlier discussion: we loose version information when it's removed -- If the track is not actually a version of the default (ie if we do not actaully have two unique sounds), then it should not be labelled as such. in line with 'state what is on the cover' -- Everyone seems to agree that covers are sometimes wrong. There are misspellings and mislabellings. when [album version is] removed, a release can have two tracks with the same name, making the track listing ambiguous -- Then fix the mistaken listing. Either call one of the (single edit) or the other (album version). The album version isn't necessarily the main version, and the album version may not be called an album version but instead LP version, 12 version, etc. and in both cases the version info is kept. -- If we match all sounds to unique names, then it doesn't matter how a track is incorrectly labelled (LP version, 12 version, album version, or even original mix), if it shares the same sound as the default-ly named sound, then it should be given the default name. There's currently an inconsistency in assumptions we make, i.e. an unlabelled track on a live release is a live version, but an unlabelled track on a single release is an album version -- From all of the above, it follows that unlabelled tracks (what I interpet to mean default-ly named tracks, to be consistent with terminology I used earlier) on live releases (assuming they differ in sound from the default-ly named tracks) should be labelled (live), and unlabelled (again, default-ly named) tracks on single releases should be labelled (single edit) if they differ in sound from the true default; otherwise, if the unlabelled tracks do not differ from their true default versions, then they should retain their default names. I left out the middle one, as I think it's the best, and it drives to a deeper issue: SameTrackRelationshipType is the
Re: [mb-style] album version, original mix, etc.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:56:18PM -0400, Tim wrote: Forgive me for beating a 2-years-dead horse, but I have not yet given my thoughts on the issue. I believe that if there was any consensus in the discussions I have been catching up on, it is all voices are welcome. To begin: [...] I disagree with more or less your whole post. I want the TrackName field we have in MusicBrainz to match the track name as it appears on the back cover as closely as possible with only very minor spelling and/or stylistic fixes. -- kuno / warp. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Re. album version, original mix, etc.
Personally, i don't feel it is our place to rewrite history. If the artist wanted the tracks differentiated, they would have do so themselves. ie. (radio version), (album version), etc. A song is a song, it has a name listed on the CD, or where ever it came from. We already have ways of differentiating different recordings of a song, the album title for one, type of release for another. We have to remember that Musicbrainz isn't just here for the maintainers, it is used by lots of people for tagging and tracking. I for one don't want my track names different from the source when i tag my music, and i don't want my names different from musicbrainz'. everytime we change a name we create a new track on last.fm rendering thier stat.s sort of useless. We are supposed to be the common denominator. Trong Trongersoll, The Hermit from the Hills Ren.Geek, Wyrd CousinNJ:NYRF My Website: http://Trong.RamapoMtn.com ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] album version, original mix, etc.
Bram: Sure, two artists creating unique tracks called one would break my system as written earlier; again, I am coming from the tagging perspective so I should have written the idea as: each unique sound is paired with one and only one unique title, where title is of course Artist Name - Track Name. Certainly artist information is requisite to differentiation of unique tracks. In fact, everyone already writes One [the U2 song] and One [the Metallica one], just reformatted to U2 - One and Metallica - One. But of course in ID3 (and certainly musicbrainz) we can separate the Artist Name and Track Name into separate strings. As for live tracks, I think there is already an accepted style of adding dates to the main track title. But I am still wondering (like your other two questions), can all information available in musicbrainz (like cover artists) required to establish a track as unique be flattened into ID3 text without creating different names for the same tracks? Can I really use musicbrainz to tag my music, or can I only use my music to update musicbrainz? kuno: Again, my perspective is tagging. I think it would be a good idea to keep an exact transcription of sleeve/cover data, (in fact I am now thinking it would be cool to have musicbrainz store the transcription along with a corrected tag name) but why even correct spelling errors in that case if we have ARs to link them to other tracks? Surely there would be another release with the track without spelling errors. It seems to me that we correct spelling to destroy variant names of the same track, for clarity of the common textual data presented to an end user. If this is the case, it seems that from an unlabelled track One and one called One (album version) is unclear if I am looking at the same track or not. Again, I am now thinking it would be cool to have a completely uncorrected transcription and some corrected tag name stored, but right now everything seems distributed between transcription and stylistic oversight for tagging purposes, making both perspectives incomplete in the context of musicbrainz. On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:56:18PM -0400, Tim wrote: Forgive me for beating a 2-years-dead horse, but I have not yet given my thoughts on the issue. I believe that if there was any consensus in the discussions I have been catching up on, it is all voices are welcome. To begin: [...] I disagree with more or less your whole post. I want the TrackName field we have in MusicBrainz to match the track name as it appears on the back cover as closely as possible with only very minor spelling and/or stylistic fixes. -- kuno / warp. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Re. album version, original mix, etc.
I think the artists themselves differentiate tracks when they play different notes. How exactly the track is ultimately named by publishers is a different matter. Indeed in many cases I (would like to) believe that the inclusion of album version or original mix is not the choice of artists, but of publishers to be redundantly explicit when naming the original track on a release containing multiple remixes. But of course in the context of multiple releases as presented on musicbrainz or in a user's playlist, simply the MainTitle (rather than MainTitle (album version) would suffice and indeed be less ambiguous. I am much more of a user than a maintainer, and I want good tags. I would like my tags a little different from the source (like spelling corrections that we already do, but also removal of album version etc.), but I definitely don't want to be different from musicbrainz, and now I am wondering (as mentioned in the other response) if it is even possible to include all textual data musicbrainz uses to exactly differentiate a track within ID3. Sure we want a solid set of rules that are not changing all the time, but also on last.fm: if half of the users are listening to Some Song and the other half to Some Song (album version) when in fact they are listening to the exact same recording, then the stats are surely broken in this case as well. On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Trong Trongersoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Personally, i don't feel it is our place to rewrite history. If the artist wanted the tracks differentiated, they would have do so themselves. ie. (radio version), (album version), etc. A song is a song, it has a name listed on the CD, or where ever it came from. We already have ways of differentiating different recordings of a song, the album title for one, type of release for another. We have to remember that Musicbrainz isn't just here for the maintainers, it is used by lots of people for tagging and tracking. I for one don't want my track names different from the source when i tag my music, and i don't want my names different from musicbrainz'. everytime we change a name we create a new track on last.fm rendering thier stat.s sort of useless. We are supposed to be the common denominator. Trong Trongersoll, The Hermit from the Hills Ren.Geek, Wyrd CousinNJ:NYRF My Website: http://Trong.RamapoMtn.com ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Re. album version, original mix, etc.
2008/8/18 Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sure we want a solid set of rules that are not changing all the time, but also on last.fm: if half of the users are listening to Some Song and the other half to Some Song (album version) when in fact they are listening to the exact same recording, then the stats are surely broken in this case as well. the tagger includes a hidden musicbrainz ID which is a unique song identifier (or at least, they did!). in theory, once songs are linked together via ARs the stats could be pooled together. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] multi-disc releases / box sets.
On 17 Jul 2008, at 08:15, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:21:45PM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
1. How will we link 8-disc sets? Link discs 2-8 to disc 1? That
might work... if you visit the first disc, it pulls the other discs
from the AR and if you visit one of the other discs it pulls from
disc
1 and all disc 1's related discs.
I'm quite OK with linking all of them to the first disc.
I think linking all of them to the first disc is best, once you get
past a few discs it would require a lot of queries to find all of the
discs, whereas the order is usually reasonably easy to work out from
the titles.
http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=%22disc+10%
22type=releaselimit=25adv=on also suggests that having a lot of
discs isn't that uncommon!
2. Is it appropriate to link bonus discs with a release even though
not all releases of a release came with the bonus disc? I guess it
wouldn't hurt and would be interesting if you could see the different
bonus discs that came with a release.
This might encourage duplicates if certain people (people like me _)
want the AR to be accurate, and split up a release into a version with
and one without the bonus disc. This should probably be specifically
allowed or disallowed in the guidelines accompanying the AR.
I don't think there is a way to link an AR to a specific release
event,
but this isn't the first AR to rub against that issue (think re-
releases
or remasters with different credits).
I was thinking about it, how about:
album B is part of a release with {all releases of} album A
or something similar? That would allow people to link bonus discs
while keeping the information about which discs always go together
and which only come with some of the releases. Of course, it won't
tell us *which* releases have bonus discs, but with the current
system it's not possible without duplication. :(
I'd definitely like to see something like this and I think it is a
step in the right direction (grouping multiple-disc releases).
Great, I feared I'd be the only one thinking this was a good idea :)
A lot of people seem to be asking about it in IRC too. I haven't
actually seen anyone say it's a bad idea.
Nikki
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
