So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
is done?
On 27 Aug 2013 23:20, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it depends on context. In a case like this with two versions it
can
As far as I'm concerned it was fine without it and it's fine with it.
+1
On 28 August 2013 09:32, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
is done?
On
LordSputnik wrote
So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
is done?
Well, it reads as an odd phrase to me:
Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release
Relate it to a release,
I agree with most of what lixobix wrote above even though I'm not very in
favor of leaving any kind of ETI on track level. I would rather see the ETI
on recordings (automatically or on demand) appear in the tracklist. I have
no idea if it is possible, but it would be a more elegant and more
Oh, and I forgot, I'm not in favor to move the ETI from the disambiguation
field to the title. :-)
I cannot understand the logic of it, and I find the use of the
disambiguation field efficient enough.
As far as I know, artists never use ETI when they announce the songs they
are about to play. :-P
On 08/27/2013 01:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
My suggestion would be to add this on the end:
So, we've reached a consensus? No additional changes need to be made to the
recording title guideline? Could I have some +1's, just so I know
everyone's happy? (I still won't close till Friday evening, because I've
said it now)
___
MusicBrainz-style
+1
On Aug 28, 2013 11:35 PM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
So, we've reached a consensus? No additional changes need to be made to
the recording title guideline? Could I have some +1's, just so I know
everyone's happy? (I still won't close till Friday evening, because I've
said it
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
My suggestion would be to add this on the end:
... Parts of the chosen track title which
Hello,
On 08/27/2013 10:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
My suggestion would be to add this on
It probably would be against the new guideline, yes, and it is intended
(there isn't really a good reason for putting it in one or the other).
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On Aug 27, 2013 9:43 PM, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
Hello,
On 08/27/2013 10:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but
under
the proposal it would get copied into
Tom Crocker wrote
To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
track.
If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud
About iTunes:
iTunes isn't always consistent, but in their m4a tagging standard they
define a metadata field to indicating the quality of the lyrics:
- Explicit
- Clean (used for edits / censoring)
- (none)
This is what the iTunes store/website displays at the track level. I don't
know what
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:09 AM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
track.
If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track
I think it depends on context. In a case like this with two versions it can
distinguish, so providing it's shown I'd expect it to be included as ETI.
If it's just general info about the track, with no attempt to disambiguate,
I'd suggest it was dropped. But that's tricky because the context is not
On Aug 26, 2013 3:47 AM, th1rtyf0ur ea...@spfc.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:14:43PM +0100, Ben Ockmore wrote:
Another thing which we haven't considered is removing the title
altogether. Since the recording title is so dependent in track titles,
it seems almost redundant. But
+1
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
I've made a new update:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title
This brings the guideline more in line with current practice, so hopefully
it'll be more widely accepted. Let me know!
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
There's a couple of interesting things on some of the wiki talk pages that
touch on this:
This link:
http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz-devel/2011/2011-05/2011-05-03.html#T16-58-49-763677is
the IRC log that deals with the broad plan of entering track titles
as-is, and 'Consistent original
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:14:43PM +0100, Ben Ockmore wrote:
Another thing which we haven't considered is removing the title
altogether. Since the recording title is so dependent in track titles,
it seems almost redundant. But please let's not go there!
No, esp. since different releases may
On 08/23/2013 02:13 PM, lixobix wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
I've no idea how you construct a good guide, unless it either
has to do with being 'named' or by listing a set of things to move, and
keep all others.
I think your right. That said, as I suggested earlier, I would be happy for
LordSputnik wrote
Another thing which we haven't considered is removing the title
altogether.
Since the recording title is so dependent in track titles, it seems almost
redundant. But please let's not go there!
I don't see why that makes them redundant.
--
View this message in context:
My biggest worry with option #3 would be the non-English applicability of
such a list. Could people who edit non-English stuff comment on if it
would be likely to be problematic?
On Aug 24, 2013 7:46 PM, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
On 08/23/2013 02:13 PM, lixobix wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
Warp, when did you last read it? I thought my latest update made that
section as clear as possible, I don't know how it can be improved at all...
I think #3 is a bad idea because it's be impossible to cover everything
which should be kept, and #2 goes against what we currently do for live
LordSputnik wrote
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should
solve
lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since there has been no change to
the actual guidance in the proposal. Please let me know if you prefer
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should
solve lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since there has been no change to
the actual
I myself don't see the problem with moving remixon it's own to the
disambiguation. It seems to be a valid disambiguation comment, and it's not
trait party of what the recording is called.
I don't know what others think about this?
___
MusicBrainz-style
Well, you can probably blame me for that. I was trying to interpret what
you said at the beginning of this discussion about demo and version (when I
think the plan had been to keep it all in the title). I'm not sure whether
it is wrong, I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm not sure what you
I agree that the named version part is unclear. I've made a small update
to try to improve that.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Tom Crocker wrote
I've no idea how you construct a good guide, unless it either
has to do with being 'named' or by listing a set of things to move, and
keep all others.
I think your right. That said, as I suggested earlier, I would be happy for
everything to go in the ETI, giving each
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Ben Ockmore lt;
ben.sput@
gt; wrote:
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should
solve lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since there has
I'm personally happy keeping named versions only. I have no problem moving
'demo', 'acoustic', 'remix', 'live', etc. to the disambiguation. Something
like 'Nick Cave pub rock version' is a specific version, so it should stay
with the title.
Another thing which we haven't considered is removing
Extending this RFC another 24 hours, because discussion is still ongoing.
Expiry Time: 2013-08-24, 22:00 UTC
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should solve
lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since there has been no change to
the actual guidance in the proposal. Please let me know if you prefer the
new wording!
Excellent, and well done for being accommodating!
+1
On Aug 22, 2013 10:55 PM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should
solve lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since
named remix, mix or edit seems unclear - does that mean Song X (remix)
should become Song X with a remix disambiguation because it doesn't have
a name? What about techno remix? (because that sounds weird to me...)
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:24:19 +0100, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com
wrote:
Updated the proposal, to use something similar to what I mentioned
two days ago:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title
[1]
If the ETI is a named version (e.g. a named remix, mix
Could you give some reasons or examples why you think ETI should stay with
the title?
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:35:56 +0100, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com
wrote:
Could you give some reasons or examples why you think ETI should stay
with the title?
Usually I consider it part of the title (so naturally it should stay
with the title). A simple suffix like '(live)' or
I was going to partly agree with you, but then I re-read the definition of
ETI, which makes it very clear that ETI is information used to distinguish
tracks with the same main title.
By that definition, anything which is ETI should be transferable to the
disambiguation. Anything which makes a
Kuno Woudt wrote
A simple suffix like '(live)' or '(acoustic)' is arguably not part of the
title, so I can understand moving that to the disambiguation field, but
the default should be to keep things with the title.
So what is a simple and what is a non-simple suffix?
Kuno Woudt wrote
I don't see why disambiguation is poorly defined - it's whatever needs to
be in the field to disambiguate the name.
I still believe that the definition of ETI means that this proposal works.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
LordSputnik wrote
I don't see why disambiguation is poorly defined - it's whatever needs to
be in the field to disambiguate the name.
Well yes, but it's circular logic, because it assumes you know what the
title is.
LordSputnik wrote
I still believe that the definition of ETI means that this
Yes, and so you'd move the ETI to the disambiguation. The proposal says if
the chosen track title contains ETI... Move it to the disambiguation
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
LordSputnik wrote
Yes, and so you'd move the ETI to the disambiguation. The proposal says
if
the chosen track title contains ETI... Move it to the disambiguation
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz
I think the logic is :
Title = most common track title = Song (acoustic)
if the chosen track title contains ETI... Move it to the disambiguation
Title = Song, disambiguation = acoustic
On Aug 22, 2013 12:39 AM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
Yes, and so you'd move the ETI
Tom Crocker wrote
I think the logic is :
Title = most common track title = Song (acoustic)
if the chosen track title contains ETI... Move it to the disambiguation
Title = Song, disambiguation = acoustic
On Aug 22, 2013 12:39 AM, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
+1
I find that much clearer, and it's more concise.
only suggestion is to put an extra . in e.g. !
On 20 August 2013 23:24, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated the proposal, to use something similar to what I mentioned two
days ago:
Done.
On 20 August 2013 23:26, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
I find that much clearer, and it's more concise.
only suggestion is to put an extra . in e.g. !
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
I'm not sure it is clear, but I'd be interested to know what others think.
I think it's easier to understand by example, the list of typical
descriptive ETI wouldn't add much (live, demo, original, acoustic, version,
etc.). I'm also not sure the rule is right (or at least obvious), wouldn't
you
But you wouldn't say a Calvin Harris remix of XYZ, you'd say the Calvin
Harris remix of XYZ. Good points on the other two though.
Perhaps we could do something like:
IF the ETI is a named version (eg. remix/mix/edit) of the song, then
include it in the title. In all other cases put the ETI in
LordSputnik wrote
But you wouldn't say a Calvin Harris remix of XYZ, you'd say the Calvin
Harris remix of XYZ. Good points on the other two though.
Perhaps we could do something like:
IF the ETI is a named version (eg. remix/mix/edit) of the song, then
include it in the title. In all
On 08/18/2013 03:25 AM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
But you wouldn't say a Calvin Harris remix of XYZ, you'd say the
Calvin Harris remix of XYZ. Good points on the other two though.
Perhaps we could do something like:
IF the ETI is a named version (eg. remix/mix/edit) of the song, then
include it
Take 2 is probably unique. Since our disambiguation comments should end up
making a title unique I think that could be a confusing term. But
describing is a good term for the other stuff. So I'd be happy to see
(radio edit) moved to disambiguation but not (Casa Boom reggae refit). One
describes,
I've made another update, in an attempt to achieve a better rule:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
That's better. One thing: perhaps change *is* best preceded by a definite
article etc to *would be* best preceded by a definite article. The is
not actually there.
Still not 100% watertight: Song (acoustic version, Studio X) could still be
interpreted as Song (*the* acoustic version, Studio X).
I'd just plaster it with some examples so it's more obvious for people who
don't want to think about definite and indefinite articles. Maybe move the
title examples up and then have some disambiguation examples.
I assume you're going to intermingle the existing live stuff with this?
On 17 August
I'd rather not add much more, since it's just a small section of the
(already huge) recording guideline.
We can always add more examples in another RFC (or maybe just directly) if
there seems to be confusion. The examples won't really help with the edge
cases, and the rule is already pretty clear
2013/8/17 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 16 August 2013 23:41, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I
2013/8/17 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
To put it another way, why do we guide that A seeming error may be
considered evidence of artist intent if it is consistently found on all of
an artist's official releases. if artist intent only exists at the
release or track level of
2013/8/17 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 16 August 2013 23:41, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I
I'm planning to close this RFC and move to RFV on the expiration date from
my latest update (ie. Sunday 18th), since I've had a +1 from Tom.
I can't see how to incorporate a rule as lixobix would like, and I don't
see the need for one, but there's nothing stopping anyone coming up with a
second
+0.5 for me.
The guideline still does not tell me whether this
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/0affb090-1c50-4138-9e73-00fe1eb515a2
should be titled
Mayonnaise
or
Mayonnaise (acoustic)
--
View this message in context:
On 08/14/2013 02:37 PM, lixobix wrote:
caller#6 wrote
... I would always *expect* to see this recording/track/song/thingy
include the remix info appended to the title. And I think most people
would expect the same. And so IMO, for all practical purposes, it
/is/ part of the title. The same
That should have acoustic in the disambiguation, since it doesn't uniquely
identify the track, it describes it.
Are there any times, besides remix/mix/edit names, where we would want to
include the track ETI in the recording name?
___
MusicBrainz-style
How's this:
If the ETI uniquely identifies the recording, leave it in the title. If it
just describes something about the recording, but not uniquely, move it to
the disambiguation. For example, the name of a particular remix does
uniquely identify the recording, so it should be included in the
LordSputnik wrote
How's this:
If the ETI uniquely identifies the recording, leave it in the title. If
it
just describes something about the recording, but not uniquely, move it to
the disambiguation. For example, the name of a particular remix does
uniquely identify the recording, so it
You mean (live: 1965-05-01, Blah blah blah)? It's not unique, since there
still could've been two performances of the recording.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I disagree but really don't want to start the recording
guidelines/definition debate off again! I think it's probably a
2013/8/17 Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com
You mean (live: 1965-05-01, Blah blah blah)? It's not unique, since
there still could've been two performances of the recording.
Yes, but there could be two different remixes with the same name.
Uniqueness is not always easy to define. Actually, I find
On 08/16/2013 05:42 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Yes, but there could be two different remixes with the same name.
Uniqueness is not always easy to define. Actually, I find easier to
imagine 2 remixes of the same work by the same artist than 2
performances of the same work the same day at
A matinee performance and an evening performance?
And this rule isn't going to always work, but I believe it's going to work
generally and I don't think we can get much better in terms of guidance. I
do think it's better than the previous section, since identifying and
describing makes things
On 16 August 2013 23:41, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I disagree but really don't want to start the
To put it another way, why do we guide that A seeming error may be
considered evidence of artist intent if it is consistently found on all of
an artist's official releases. if artist intent only exists at the
release or track level of aggregation? Doesn't it point to the concepts
represented by
LordSputnik wrote
A matinee performance and an evening performance?
And this rule isn't going to always work, but I believe it's going to work
generally and I don't think we can get much better in terms of guidance. I
do think it's better than the previous section, since identifying and
I don't like saying remix/edit info, because it leaves open the
possibility of other valid stuff being left out. Also, first version
doesn't uniquely identify a recording without a context (first version
*ever* or first *published* version could be two different things), and
could just as easily
LordSputnik wrote
I don't like saying remix/edit info, because it leaves open the
possibility of other valid stuff being left out.
What kind of things are you thinking of?
LordSputnik wrote
Also, first version doesn't uniquely identify a recording without a
context (first version
*ever* or
Because one is what the recording is called, and the other describes
something about it. The live doesn't uniquely identify the song variant.
We could probably get away with putting all ETI in the disambiguation, bit
not all disambiguations and ETI in the recording title.
Tom: Those aren't
On Aug 14, 2013 12:25 AM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
lixobix: The recording title isn't really anything, it's just the most
appropriate title we can come up with for the recording, based on the
track
titles.
Surely the most appropriate title for the recording is
LordSputnik wrote
Because one is what the recording is called, and the other describes
something about it. The live doesn't uniquely identify the song variant.
But you could equally argue that Amazing Song is the title and (Calvin
Harris remix) just describes something about it, identifies the
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On Aug 14, 2013 12:25 AM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
lixobix: The recording title isn't really anything, it's just the most
appropriate title we can come up with for the recording, based on the
track
titles.
I disagree but really don't want to start the recording
guidelines/definition debate off again! I think it's probably a question of
perspective
On 14 August 2013 11:24, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On Aug 14, 2013 12:25 AM,
Well is anyone significantly opposed to putting all ETI in disambiguation
comments?
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Well is anyone significantly opposed to putting all ETI in disambiguation
comments?
If that includes remix names, yes.
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I disagree but really don't want to start the recording
guidelines/definition debate off again! I think it's probably a question of
perspective
On 14 August 2013 11:24, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Ben Ockmore lt;
ben.sput@
gt; wrote:
Well is anyone significantly opposed to putting all ETI in disambiguation
comments?
If that includes remix names, yes.
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On 08/13/2013 04:24 PM, lixobix wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
As for the ETI/disambiguation, if you have a track: Amazing Song
(live), then live isn't part of the title.
However, you could say something like I'm
going to listen to Amazing Song (Calvin Harris remix) or This is Amazing
Song
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I disagree but really don't want to start the recording
guidelines/definition debate off again! I think it's probably a question of
perspective
On 14 August 2013 11:24,
caller#6 wrote
1. (live) isn't part of the song title. It's information that is
relevant mainly within the context of a particular tracklist. The same
recording, if it were on a live album, would almost certainly not have
(live) in the track title.
Your quite right about the recording
On 08/14/2013 09:45 AM, lixobix wrote:
caller#6 wrote
No matter what the context, this recording will likely include (Calvin
Harris remix) in the title
This is merely reasserting that it should be part of the title, not giving a
reason why it should be, and live shouldn't. Recordings will
caller#6 wrote
On 08/14/2013 09:45 AM, lixobix wrote:
caller#6 wrote
No matter what the context, this recording will likely include (Calvin
Harris remix) in the title
This is merely reasserting that it should be part of the title, not
giving a
reason why it should be, and live shouldn't.
Tom Crocker wrote
The Britney example is much clearer.
I have to agree with lixobix that the ETI stuff is confusing as currently
written. Is this clearer?
If the chosen track title contains extra title information (ETI), it
should
be kept with the recording, either as part of the title or
2013/8/13 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com
Tom Crocker wrote
The Britney example is much clearer.
I have to agree with lixobix that the ETI stuff is confusing as currently
written. Is this clearer?
If the chosen track title contains extra title information (ETI), it
should
be kept with
We have a disambiguation field, so not using it seems pointless. We still
need to be able to disambiguate search results for identically named
recordings.
Plus, as FDV pointed out, external apps might use the recording title as a
way of normalising track titles (Picard already does something like
LordSputnik wrote
We have a disambiguation field, so not using it seems pointless. We still
need to be able to disambiguate search results for identically named
recordings.
Plus, as FDV pointed out, external apps might use the recording title as a
way of normalising track titles (Picard
On 08/13/2013 11:44 AM, lixobix wrote:
Yes, but since every recording ought to have a unique title,
I don’t think this is correct.
Otherwise, with multiple live recordings of a
work, they would all be called Title in your media player: Not what I
would want.
Translating from musicbrainz
Alex Mauer wrote
On 08/13/2013 11:44 AM, lixobix wrote:
Yes, but since every recording ought to have a unique title,
I don’t think this is correct.
Otherwise, with multiple live recordings of a
work, they would all be called Title in your media player: Not what I
would want.
On 08/13/2013 12:36 PM, lixobix wrote:
There's currently no way to append (live, 1990-02-09: Pine Street Theatre,
Portland, OR, USA) without the extra (live), because I can't access the
recording title from Picard.
Yes.
That is something that should be changed in Picard.
signature.asc
On 13 August 2013 15:38, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
How are recordings used externally to the site? I'm starting to wonder why
we need disambiguations for recordings at all. Disambiguations were
created
to contain clarifying information internal to the site. Since
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
