• Registered: 2011-03-08

Topic: Multiple extra title information

Is there a style guideline for handling multiple extra title information for a track title? For example, should this track title be:

Silence (Airscape remix) (edit)

or should the multiple-ETI be nested as:

Silence (Airscape remix (edit))

or do we absolutely avoid the multiple-ETI scenario as follows:

Silence (Airscape remix edit)

The recording adopts the first variation, which I think I prefer, but as you can see the tracks associated with it adopt all three types!

http://musicbrainz.org/recording/184ee0 … 5be4ed0627

Or do we always move the (edit) part into the recording disambiguation field, and thus remove it from all the track titles?

It looks like the sort of style problem that could be easily solved with a clear guideline consistently applied across the database.

2 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Multiple extra title information

if remixer used the x version of Recording then it should be Recording (x version)(Remixer remix)
if remixer used the original Recording then someone made x version of that remix then it should be Recording (Remixer remix)(x version)

not sure if it is still same after NGS but this was the style guideline before. Check http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Title … nformation for more info.

  • From: Singapore
  • Registered: 2007-02-13

Re: Multiple extra title information

ym - your instructions lack Style-compliant spacing between the two sets of brackets (but the idea of what you're trying to get across is correct)

With regards to combining, there's a bit of a mixture in the database, but I think most editors prefer the first version. Definitely not the second - ugly! :) As for whether to use disambiguation or not - this isn't really well determined. I tend to leave it in the title for the recording most of the time since it makes searching easier (I believe disambiguation comments are not correctly indexed/searched) - but even were it to be removed, tracks can have titles that include the ETI where it makes sense; and possibly omit it where it does not.

e.g. If I have a release full of live recordings will probably not have (live) in each track title, whereas if one of those same recordings is on a single alongside the album version, it will need (live) or similar in the track title to disambiguate. i.e. different releases may require different ETI for the same recording.

The disambig area is very difficult to come up with a consistent guideline for unfortunately.

voiceinsideyou's Website

  • Registered: 2011-03-08

Re: Multiple extra title information

voiceinsideyou wrote:

ym - your instructions lack Style-compliant spacing between the two sets of brackets (but the idea of what you're trying to get across is correct)

I agree - this case is slightly different in that the extra-ETI isn't informing us that the remixer is mixing a different version, rather that this is an edited version of the remix (the full version also exists separately, which is what this extra-ETI tells us), but the general point applies.

voiceinsideyou wrote:

With regards to combining, there's a bit of a mixture in the database, but I think most editors prefer the first version. Definitely not the second - ugly! :)

I agree. What prompted me was that I've seen auto-editors converting track titles to the second version and wondered whether there was a style guideline saying that should be the case (e.g. see http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17108097).

voiceinsideyou wrote:

As for whether to use disambiguation or not - this isn't really well determined. I tend to leave it in the title for the recording most of the time since it makes searching easier

I also agree with this - if it's in the track title on the release then it should be captured in the track titles in the database, and I believe recordings follow the track title style guidelines and so should be the same, with the disambiguation comment just providing extra information that is not captured in the track title. I just included this possibility for completeness.

BTW, this documentation could really do with being updated - it still has a paragraph talking about the obsoleted Same Track Relationship Type: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles … nformation

  • Registered: 2011-03-08

Re: Multiple extra title information

ym wrote:

if remixer used the x version of Recording then it should be Recording (x version)(Remixer remix)
if remixer used the original Recording then someone made x version of that remix then it should be Recording (Remixer remix)(x version)

That's an interesting case, because it shows the opportunity for having three-levels of extra title information, for which to put the various styles to test. There's your suggested style:

Recording (x version) (Remixer remix) (edit)

and now there are multiple possibilities for the nested style:

Recording (x version (Remixer remix) (edit))

Recording (x version (Remixer remix (edit)))

Recording (((x version) Remixer remix) edit)

Recording ((x version Remixer remix) edit)

Recording (x version (Remixer remix) edit)

Recording (x version Remixer remix (edit))

I think this is a good reason to avoid nesting - your suggested style is more clear-cut. Although the case for avoiding multiple-ETI still stands:

Recording (x version Remixer remix edit)

However, I think that as you can clearly break-up the parts of the ETI then I think multiple-ETI, in your suggested style, makes this clearer.

6 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Multiple extra title information

zexpe wrote:

I think this is a good reason to avoid nesting - your suggested style is more clear-cut. Although the case for avoiding multiple-ETI still stands:

This definitely is not "my" suggested style. It was a common practice and Official Style-guideline (I think) of Musicbrainz to better identify multiple versions of tracks. However, as NGS is in the playground, I'm sure those Style Guidelines will be updated to better reflect the schema. There is just too many work to do for now so it may take time for that.
However, as voiceinsideyou points, ETI's are not completely helping us situations like these, so using some older style guidelines is not a bad idea until someone points you to a new version of the situation. To be honest, I haven't entered even one ETI to a recording yet. I'm still waiting them to have their true meaning set either by developers or style-council.

zexpe wrote:

What prompted me was that I've seen auto-editors converting track titles to the second version and wondered whether there was a style guideline saying that should be the case (e.g. see http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17108097).

If any (auto)editor is reverting back your change, or voting no, without saying a reason, you can and should ask them the reason. So, that they would point you the way to a guideline or a discussion, so that you can understand the situation better.
Also, you can always use forums and/or user mailing list asking for help or reason.