Stupidly long release names - CSG overkill?

[James Le Cuirot-2]

Hello. I'm new to MusicBrainz. I've gradually been ripping my
collection and all was well until I started on some classical stuff. My
Chopin compilation, entitled "Apollo Classics: Chopin", currently
exists in the system as...

Fantasie impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op.66 No. 4 / Etude in C minor,
Op. 10 No. 12 / Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53 / Waltz in D-flat
minor, Op. 64 No. 1 "Minute Waltz" / others (The Berlin Pro Musica
Symphony Orchestra feat. piano: Dieter Goldmann)

It previously had the shorter name but this was changed according to
the CSG, probably in line with these examples. Now I'm all for
consistency but that is one ridiculously long release title. It's so
long that even the directory name got truncated, nevermind the
filenames. My media player, XMMS2, also has trouble finding it in the
media library.

I'm not sure what the logic behind it was anyway. I'm no Chopin expert
but the tracks on this release appear to be largely unrelated to each
other. It's almost like adding all the artists from a Various Artists
release to the artist field. Not all the tracks were included, probably
because it wasn't possible to fit anymore in. Why were these ones
chosen in particular?

Apart from looking messy and breaking some media players, this title is
simply not going to register in my mind as anything other than that
Chopin album with the stupidly long name. Looking at the other Chopin
releases, this is actually the longest, though some are almost as bad.

My question is, was this really what the CSG intended? It makes sense
for one or two groups of works but once you go beyond three, wouldn't
it be better to stick to the actual release title? In this case, the
works don't appear to even be grouped at all. Your thoughts?

http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=8027

----------------

I originally posted this at the forums but was told it would be better
to post it here. I received a couple of suggestions such as...

Fantasie impromptu Op.66 No. 4 / Etude Op. 10 No. 12 / Polonaise Op.
53 / Waltz Op. 64 No. 1/ others (The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony
Orchestra feat. piano: Dieter Goldmann)

Fantasie impromptu in C-sharp minor / Etude in C minor / Polonaise in
A-flat major / Waltz in D-flat minor / others (The Berlin Pro Musica
Symphony Orchestra feat. piano: Dieter Goldmann)

Ballad / Etudes / Fantasie / Mazurka / Nocturnes / Polonaises /
Prelude / Waltzes (The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra feat.
piano: Dieter Goldmann)

They're better but I think this is still missing the point. If the
works are unrelated, why list them all out at all? You don't do it on
non-classical compilations so why do it here?

Regards,
James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>

Hello. I'm new to MusicBrainz. I've gradually been ripping my
collection and all was well until I started on some classical stuff. My
Chopin compilation, entitled "Apollo Classics: Chopin", currently
exists in the system as...

Fantasie impromptu in C-sharp minor, Op.66 No. 4 / Etude in C minor,
Op. 10 No. 12 / Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53 / Waltz in D-flat
minor, Op. 64 No. 1 "Minute Waltz" / others (The Berlin Pro Musica
Symphony Orchestra feat. piano: Dieter Goldmann)

It previously had the shorter name but this was changed according to
the CSG, probably in line with these examples. Now I'm all for
consistency but that is one ridiculously long release title. It's so
long that even the directory name got truncated, nevermind the
filenames. My media player, XMMS2, also has trouble finding it in the
media library.

I'm not sure what the logic behind it was anyway. I'm no Chopin expert
but the tracks on this release appear to be largely unrelated to each
other. It's almost like adding all the artists from a Various Artists
release to the artist field. Not all the tracks were included, probably
because it wasn't possible to fit anymore in. Why were these ones
chosen in particular?

Apart from looking messy and breaking some media players, this title is
simply not going to register in my mind as anything other than that
Chopin album with the stupidly long name. Looking at the other Chopin
releases, this is actually the longest, though some are almost as bad.

My question is, was this really what the CSG intended? It makes sense
for one or two groups of works but once you go beyond three, wouldn't
it be better to stick to the actual release title? In this case, the
works don't appear to even be grouped at all. Your thoughts?

http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=8027

----------------

I originally posted this at the forums but was told it would be better
to post it here. I received a couple of suggestions such as...

Fantasie impromptu Op.66 No. 4 / Etude Op. 10 No. 12 / Polonaise Op.
53 / Waltz Op. 64 No. 1/ others (The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony
Orchestra feat. piano: Dieter Goldmann)

Fantasie impromptu in C-sharp minor / Etude in C minor / Polonaise in
A-flat major / Waltz in D-flat minor / others (The Berlin Pro Musica
Symphony Orchestra feat. piano: Dieter Goldmann)

Ballad / Etudes / Fantasie / Mazurka / Nocturnes / Polonaises /
Prelude / Waltzes (The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra feat.
piano: Dieter Goldmann)

They're better but I think this is still missing the point. If the
works are unrelated, why list them all out at all? You don't do it on
non-classical compilations so why do it here?

To explain why I would list the works, we must admit that the title needs to be changed, which is not obvious in this case. Changing the name would be useful before NGS because the exact same Release (in terms of recorded musical material) could be released under different names. I would change the name because otherwise there would be no reason to use one of the actual titles rather than another. This is my reason for changing the names

Once you admit the name must be changed (once again, I am not sure this applies here), you must choose the new title. You could use a generic title such as "Various works", but this would of course lead to dozes of "Various works" releases. So the idea is to create a unique name.

I haven't followed closely enough the implications of changes currently being implemented in MB (NGS, ReleaseGroups...) So I don't know if such a title change would still be useful. Maybe the Style Guide should be changed but nobody had the time to do it yet :-) Or maybe MB "classical" users still think release names should be normalized.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2009/7/22 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...>

2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>

They're better but I think this is still missing the point. If the
works are unrelated, why list them all out at all? You don't do it on
non-classical compilations so why do it here?

I forgot to answer to this question :-)

Because if we choose not to list them all, then we fill face the issue of choosing which should be included and which should be left out. I don't know how this problem would be addressed in non-classical compilations. Actually, I think in non-classical (compilations or otherwise) we just copy the actual printed title. But remember, all this is "if the release title has to be changed". If not, of course, this whole discussion is pointless.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:30:14 +0200
Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...> wrote:

> 2009/7/22 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...>
>
> > 2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>
> >  
> >> They're better but I think this is still missing the point. If the
> >> works are unrelated, why list them all out at all? You don't do it
> >> on non-classical compilations so why do it here?
> >>  
> >  
> I forgot to answer to this question :-)
>
> Because if we choose not to list them all, then we fill face the
> issue of choosing which should be included and which should be left
> out. I don't know how this problem would be addressed in
> non-classical compilations. Actually, I think in non-classical
> (compilations or otherwise) we just copy the actual printed title.
> But remember, all this is "if the release title has to be changed".
> If not, of course, this whole discussion is pointless.

Copying the printed title is what I was implying. I think only including
some of the works makes even less sense.

My argument for why the title should be changed at all is that many
media players will have trouble displaying a name this long and may
even have trouble loading the files at all. As I stated, this is the
case for XMMS2, or at least the gxmms2 client. The truncated filenames
are another point but not something I'd lose sleep over. I'd also argue
that it just looks plain silly but I guess that's subjective. :-P

James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:30:14 +0200
Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...> wrote:

> 2009/7/22 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...>
>
> > 2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>
> >
> >> They're better but I think this is still missing the point. If the
> >> works are unrelated, why list them all out at all? You don't do it
> >> on non-classical compilations so why do it here?
> >>
> >
> I forgot to answer to this question :-)
>
> Because if we choose not to list them all, then we fill face the
> issue of choosing which should be included and which should be left
> out. I don't know how this problem would be addressed in
> non-classical compilations. Actually, I think in non-classical
> (compilations or otherwise) we just copy the actual printed title.
> But remember, all this is "if the release title has to be changed".
> If not, of course, this whole discussion is pointless.

Copying the printed title is what I was implying. I think only including
some of the works makes even less sense.

My argument for why the title should be changed at all is that many
media players will have trouble displaying a name this long and may
even have trouble loading the files at all. As I stated, this is the
case for XMMS2, or at least the gxmms2 client. The truncated filenames
are another point but not something I'd lose sleep over. I'd also argue
that it just looks plain silly but I guess that's subjective. :-P

James

I fear that this argument won't be accepted by many MB users ;-) Their point of view (and mine too) is that MB is a music database before being a tagging service (although MB uses mp3 tagging as a way to attract users). So the idea would rather be to set up the tagger in order to limit the length of the title. I believe Picard has commands suitable for this.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:56:52 +0200
Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...> wrote:

> I fear that this argument won't be accepted by many MB users ;-)
> Their point of view (and mine too) is that MB is a music database
> before being a tagging service (although MB uses mp3 tagging as a way
> to attract users). So the idea would rather be to set up the tagger
> in order to limit the length of the title. I believe Picard has
> commands suitable for this.

That's a fair point. If there was a field that we could use to store the
printed title then I would happily settle for Picard scripting. Without
that, I can't think of any good way to make use of the scripting other
than to simply truncate the title and that wouldn't be too pretty.

James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria<davitofrg@...> wrote:

> 2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:30:14 +0200
>> Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...> wrote:
>>
>> > 2009/7/22 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...>
>> >
>> > > 2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>
>> > >
>> > >> They're better but I think this is still missing the point. If the
>> > >> works are unrelated, why list them all out at all? You don't do it
>> > >> on non-classical compilations so why do it here?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > I forgot to answer to this question :-)
>> >
>> > Because if we choose not to list them all, then we fill face the
>> > issue of choosing which should be included and which should be left
>> > out. I don't know how this problem would be addressed in
>> > non-classical compilations. Actually, I think in non-classical
>> > (compilations or otherwise) we just copy the actual printed title.
>> > But remember, all this is "if the release title has to be changed".
>> > If not, of course, this whole discussion is pointless.
>>
>> Copying the printed title is what I was implying. I think only including
>> some of the works makes even less sense.
>>
>> My argument for why the title should be changed at all is that many
>> media players will have trouble displaying a name this long and may
>> even have trouble loading the files at all. As I stated, this is the
>> case for XMMS2, or at least the gxmms2 client. The truncated filenames
>> are another point but not something I'd lose sleep over. I'd also argue
>> that it just looks plain silly but I guess that's subjective. :-P
>>
>> James
>
> I fear that this argument won't be accepted by many MB users ;-) Their point
> of view (and mine too) is that MB is a music database before being a tagging
> service (although MB uses mp3 tagging as a way to attract users). So the
> idea would rather be to set up the tagger in order to limit the length of
> the title. I believe Picard has commands suitable for this.
>

I would agree with the above sentiments.  Also, the title you mention
is "only" 253 characters long.  Any program which crashes or fails to
recognize that tag, even if only in some truncated form, does not
implement the ID3 2.x standard correctly, as per the ID3 2.x specs, a
correct ID3 2.3+ implementation requires that a field length of up to
16,777,216 characters be capable of being handled by your player.

While the current title may be overkill, any edit which attempted to
rename the release to "Apollo Classics: Chopin" - ie, a non-title
'title' of "label name: composer name" - would get a no vote from me.

Brian

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:10:10 -0400
Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:

> While the current title may be overkill, any edit which attempted to
> rename the release to "Apollo Classics: Chopin" - ie, a non-title
> 'title' of "label name: composer name" - would get a no vote from me.

I didn't simply go ahead and change it because I recognise that this is
a community effort and that at least some degree of consensus is needed.
If you guys can make a strong case for why it shouldn't be changed
(you're doing a good job so far) then I'll respectfully go with your
better judgement.

I just want to clarify "Apollo Classics: Chopin" isn't a made-up title.
This was prominently shown on the cover and I feel that it is as valid
as any other printed title.

James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2009/7/22 James Le Cuirot <chewi@...>

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:10:10 -0400
Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:

> While the current title may be overkill, any edit which attempted to
> rename the release to "Apollo Classics: Chopin" - ie, a non-title
> 'title' of "label name: composer name" - would get a no vote from me.

I didn't simply go ahead and change it because I recognise that this is
a community effort and that at least some degree of consensus is needed.
If you guys can make a strong case for why it shouldn't be changed
(you're doing a good job so far) then I'll respectfully go with your
better judgement.

I just want to clarify "Apollo Classics: Chopin" isn't a made-up title.
This was prominently shown on the cover and I feel that it is as valid
as any other printed title.

Yes, this is the point: should we (now or when NGS is more or less completely implemented) switch to "the printed cover rules", which seems to be the rule in non-classical, or do we stick to the current system. If we stay with option 2, I suggest that the justifications for such a choice should be mentioned in the CSG.

BTW, my position: I don't really care: I like the current system because this is how I think of my own releases, but OTOH removing one of the "classical exceptions" could be a good idea.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Evigheden]

James Le Cuirot pisze:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:56:52 +0200
> Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> I fear that this argument won't be accepted by many MB users ;-)
>> Their point of view (and mine too) is that MB is a music database
>> before being a tagging service (although MB uses mp3 tagging as a way
>> to attract users). So the idea would rather be to set up the tagger
>> in order to limit the length of the title. I believe Picard has
>> commands suitable for this.
>>    
>
> That's a fair point. If there was a field that we could use to store the
> printed title then I would happily settle for Picard scripting. Without
> that, I can't think of any good way to make use of the scripting other
> than to simply truncate the title and that wouldn't be too pretty.
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>  

I have questions to that case.
1)If I understand correctly main purpose of including performer and/or
conductor, etc. in the title is to differentiate between same works
performed by different performers (for example dozens of Mozart's
Requiems), but in such case, where release is compilation of a lot not
related works it's highly unlikely that more releases with the identical
works in the same order would be released with different performers, so
why don't stop to put performers in such releases - it would shorter the
title, but don't make mess in database (what more - performers in title
are really strange and, as I know, if there would be way to different
these Mozart's Requiems releases there would be no such guideline)
2)Look on Arvo Part's
http://musicbrainz.org/release/f07818e6-50b9-4550-abd2-5207f684d28e.html 
. It's okay, however the title is taken from the front cover - side
cover is saying "Music for Unaccompanied Choir" and the real thing is
that there are 8 unrelated (except from that all are works for
unaccompanied choir). It was editors form Naxos, whose decided which of
these works should be put on front cover. If they can make such
decision, why we can't? The front cover shows only 4 the most know
works, for me the real "title" of release is "Music for Unaccompanied
Choir".
3)Similar case is with multidisc editions like
http://musicbrainz.org/release/e0c9de38-adc5-4f0b-afcc-b4daff4a8df6.html 
. Why include in title both - the name of series (The Ligeti Project)
and works on this disc? Personally I think that only "The Ligeti Project
I" is sufficient. The same case with Penderecki's
http://musicbrainz.org/release/61fda70a-e489-4256-8d93-234a26b53f65.html 
- in that case we have "Orchestral Works Vol. 1" in database not
"Orchestral Works Vol. 1: Symphony No. 3 / Threnody" as on cover!

I can agree on long titles, because I think MB should be like
encyclopaedia not tagging database, but first it should be consistent
and second we should think about users, which probably would prefer
shorter titles (and editors - for me decisions what put in title in Arvo
Part case even with existing guidelines would be very difficult - maybe
"Music for Unaccompanied Choir" and titles of all works on disc?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wybierasz siê na wakacje? Nie zapomnij siê ubezpieczyc.
Najtaniej zrobisz to na http://link.interia.pl/f2284.
Zadbamy o bezpieczenstwo Twoje i Twoich najblizszych.


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Dave Smey]

Even accepting the norms of CSG, the current title seems to be a fairly
poor choice, way out of line with the sense of the original product.

My impression is that what James has in hand is a "cheapie" compilation of
Chopin Piano Greatest Hits.  It would normally have a recognizable title,
such as "Chopin Piano Favorites" or, (if it were a less cheap production),
"So-and-so Plays Chopin."  These would be decent titles.

Looking at the title in MB, my first questions would be about that
performer info.  What is "The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra" doing
there?  Aren't these solo pieces?  And is "Dieter Goldmann" really playing
all of the pieces?  If not, this data does not belong in the title.

Ultimately, I think we have to admit that the lofty goal of a
disambiguated title is probably unachievable in this case, since the
product is (apparently) so very generic.

I'll try to dig through the edit notes and see if I can find n original
source.

- Dave Smey (bklynd)




_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:22:38 -0400 (EDT)
"Dave Smey" <autodave@...> wrote:

> My impression is that what James has in hand is a "cheapie"
> compilation of Chopin Piano Greatest Hits.  It would normally have a
> recognizable title, such as "Chopin Piano Favorites" or, (if it were
> a less cheap production), "So-and-so Plays Chopin."  These would be
> decent titles.
>
> Looking at the title in MB, my first questions would be about that
> performer info.  What is "The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra"
> doing there?  Aren't these solo pieces?  And is "Dieter Goldmann"
> really playing all of the pieces?  If not, this data does not belong
> in the title.

It's one my oldest CDs. I've long since dispensed with the case and
cover but the disc has some helpful information printed on it.

Tracks 1, 6, 9 and 13:
Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra (Hans-Jurgen Walther)

Other Tracks;
Piano - Dieter Goldmann

So you're probably right, these shouldn't go in the release title. I'm
not sure where they're supposed to go, if anywhere. Possibly in the
track titles as featured artists?

James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Brant Gibbard]

No, they belong as ARs associated with the tracks on which they perform, not
in the track titles.

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: musicbrainz-style-bounces@...
> [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces@...] On
> Behalf Of James Le Cuirot
> Sent: July-22-09 11:43 AM
> To: musicbrainz-style@...
> Subject: Re: [mb-style] Stupidly long release names - CSG overkill?
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:22:38 -0400 (EDT) "Dave Smey"
> <autodave@...> wrote:
>
> > My impression is that what James has in hand is a "cheapie"
> > compilation of Chopin Piano Greatest Hits.  It would
> normally have a
> > recognizable title, such as "Chopin Piano Favorites" or,
> (if it were a
> > less cheap production), "So-and-so Plays Chopin."  These would be
> > decent titles.
> >
> > Looking at the title in MB, my first questions would be about that
> > performer info.  What is "The Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra"
> > doing there?  Aren't these solo pieces?  And is "Dieter Goldmann"
> > really playing all of the pieces?  If not, this data does
> not belong
> > in the title.
>
> It's one my oldest CDs. I've long since dispensed with the
> case and cover but the disc has some helpful information
> printed on it.
>
> Tracks 1, 6, 9 and 13:
> Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra (Hans-Jurgen Walther)
>
> Other Tracks;
> Piano - Dieter Goldmann
>
> So you're probably right, these shouldn't go in the release
> title. I'm not sure where they're supposed to go, if
> anywhere. Possibly in the track titles as featured artists?
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Dave Smey]

> It's one my oldest CDs. I've long since dispensed with the case and
> cover but the disc has some helpful information printed on it.
>
> Tracks 1, 6, 9 and 13:
> Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra (Hans-Jurgen Walther)
>
Hrmmm.  So, when you play these tracks, the sound of an orchestra comes
out?  :)  Is there piano with it?  I guess these are transcriptions.

> Other Tracks;
> Piano - Dieter Goldmann
>
It does imply that the performance is exclusively divided between Goldman
and the symphony.  Still, I'm skeptical that this is even correct.

> So you're probably right, these shouldn't go in the release title. I'm
> not sure where they're supposed to go, if anywhere.
>
Well, if the information is correct, it can indeed go in the title.  I
would find that more valuable than the 4 pieces that are listed in that it
does indeed ID the release somewhat specifically.

>Possibly in the
> track titles as featured artists?

Noooooo, never the track titles.  You would create Advanced Relationships
(ARs) for each track.


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:59:38 -0400 (EDT)
"Dave Smey" <autodave@...> wrote:

>
> > It's one my oldest CDs. I've long since dispensed with the case and
> > cover but the disc has some helpful information printed on it.
> >
> > Tracks 1, 6, 9 and 13:
> > Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra (Hans-Jurgen Walther)
> >
> Hrmmm.  So, when you play these tracks, the sound of an orchestra
> comes out?  :)  Is there piano with it?  I guess these are
> transcriptions.
>
> > Other Tracks;
> > Piano - Dieter Goldmann
> >
> It does imply that the performance is exclusively divided between
> Goldman and the symphony.  Still, I'm skeptical that this is even
> correct.

It actually lists the performer explicitly for each track, I was just
summarising it. I don't think the piano features in the orchestra
tracks and I'm just listening to check. I believe the information is
correct and have no reason to doubt it.

> > So you're probably right, these shouldn't go in the release title.
> > I'm not sure where they're supposed to go, if anywhere.
> >
> Well, if the information is correct, it can indeed go in the title.  I
> would find that more valuable than the 4 pieces that are listed in
> that it does indeed ID the release somewhat specifically.
>
> >Possibly in the
> > track titles as featured artists?
>
> Noooooo, never the track titles.  You would create Advanced
> Relationships (ARs) for each track.

Okay, I've been told. Twice! ;) The release title debate aside, I think
I'll at least make this change.

James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:08:48 +0100
James Le Cuirot <chewi@...> wrote:

> I believe the information is
> correct and have no reason to doubt it.

Heh I spoke too soon. Track 7 is definitely the orchestra and not the
piano! I'll be listening more carefully now. XD

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Dave Smey]

> It actually lists the performer explicitly for each track, I was just
> summarising it. I don't think the piano features in the orchestra
> tracks and I'm just listening to check. I believe the information is
> correct and have no reason to doubt it.
>
OK, so if the performance info is correct, I'd support something like

Apollo Classics: Chopin (Berlin Pro Musica Symphony Orchestra, Dieter
Goldman)

The reason I hesitate to include the traditional feat. piano: is that it
strongly implies that Goldman is performing with the orchestra.  Who plays
what can be indicated with ARs.

The reason I oppose listing 4 out of 13 works is that it doesn't help to
ID the release.  There are likely dozens of releases that include those 4
popular works, and there is no chance of a user actually finding and
recognizing this title out of a list of 100s of releases.  By naming it
"Apollo Classics" the user at least has a chance.

And yes, I do think that a 253-character title is "too long," barring some
compelling reason it must be that way.

-Dave Smey (bklynd)


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[James Le Cuirot-2]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
"Dave Smey" <autodave@...> wrote:

> The reason I oppose listing 4 out of 13 works is that it doesn't help
> to ID the release.  There are likely dozens of releases that include
> those 4 popular works, and there is no chance of a user actually
> finding and recognizing this title out of a list of 100s of
> releases.  By naming it "Apollo Classics" the user at least has a
> chance.

That's a good point. When I went to locate the release, the CD Lookup
turned up nothing because my disc's ID was slightly different to the
existing one. Searching for "Apollo Classics" didn't turn up anything
either. I was about to make a new release but I thought I'd give it one
more try and brought up the entire listing for Chopin. It wasn't until
I spotted Goldmann that I found it.

James

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[leivhe]

Dave Smey wrote:
> And yes, I do think that a 253-character title is "too long," barring some
> compelling reason it must be that way.

I agree.

leivhe

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Evigheden]

Leiv Hellebo pisze:

> Dave Smey wrote:
>  
>> And yes, I do think that a 253-character title is "too long," barring some
>> compelling reason it must be that way.
>>    
>
> I agree.
>
> leivhe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

I also agree. The title should be helping user, not follow guideline
only to follow guideline. Putting few names of works rather then simple
title prevent user from finding specific releases and do not help in
improve clarity of database.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
W wakacje OC kupisz 20 zl taniej, Auto Casco – 30 zl taniej
Na pakiecie OC i Auto Casco zaoszczedzisz nawet 50 zl
Kliknij na http://link.interia.pl/f2283 i sprawdz pozosta³e promocje


_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style