Talk:Recording Disambiguation

* Multiple takes of the same song on the same day will each have a unique matrix number

Unfortunately, it does not feel like this is the case. See for example Outward Bound, Prestige, where both alternate takes are slapped with the same matrix as the master takes as far as I know.

There are always exceptions. I see the Tom Lord discography has the takes as e.g. "2101" and "2101 ?". But don't you think it's true 95%+ of the time? -highstrung

agreed - maybe we can just tweak the language to "generally", or "normally" or "in the vast majority of cases"? - dmppanda

* studio, 1931-11-04: Okeh matrix W 405061-1, "oh memory" take

I guess the example should be adapted to fit the suggested format to:

studio, 1931-11-04: Okeh, W 405061-1, "oh memory" take

* studio, YYYY-MM-DD: Label, Matrix, Additional Info

I think this proposal works well for me - I like it. I have one caveat. When the matrix is not known and there is additional info, or when there is no additional info but there is a matrix, these two pieces of information may prove hard to distinguish (especially for scripts).

Since matrix numbers are inherently tied to the specific label issuing them, I would probably prefer lumping these two together in just one "field" (eg: coma separated).

eg:

`studio, YYYY-MM-DD: [Matrix ]Label[, Additional Info]` (or `Label[ Matrix][, Additional Info]` if your prefer)

I agree this is better. I'm torn on whether the word "matrix" should be included: "Okeh matrix W 405061-1" vs "Okeh W 405061-1". If folks are familiar with matrix numbers, the second is more compact, but if not it could be confusing. -highstrung

yeah, I see what you mean - but honestly I do not think any regular user will engage with any of that regardless - working on that kind of stuff (disambiguation for recordings for old school jazz) is a thing for half a dozen veteran editors roaming the jazz section, and they all know what a matrix is (plus they can read here)... my vote is to just go without the word "matrix" - dmppanda

* live style "live, YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country"

I think the live style has some remnant from a decade ago (when we did not have places or places AR). It does not make sense to me anymore.

I would reduce it to just the venue name, or country name, but I would discard the whole "full location" format and allow for additional info instead:

`live, YYYY-MM-DD: Venue[, optional additional information]`

Not sure I want to touch this. For one, it's already an official guideline and in wide usage. Also the venue is not always known and not necessarily unique. Yeah, it is (or should be!) redundant with rels but it offers at-a-glance visibility. -highstrung

yep, I am unwilling to go fight that fight as well, but I am a rebel, and I will not fully comply with it :-D. My main gripe here is the use of coma between venue, city, country, that will make it very hard to distinguish that from the additional bit. - dmppanda

* broadcast

Can we cover broadcast as well?

I would just go with:

`broadcast, YYYY-MM-DD: Studio or location[, optional additional information]`

I have used (probably imitating ones I've seen) "radio broadcast" or "TV broadcast" but I wonder if that is needed. -highstrung

Yeah, I would not put TV or radio (as quite often both exist in the 60s, and as this is not really adding much value in term of disambiguating) and stick with just "broadcast". The thing here is that people tend to classify all broadcasts as live, while they are not (always). Calling out the fact they are a broadcast will help thinking more / editing / cleaning up IMHO. - dmppanda