History talk:Classical Release Title Style
- Either this is actually a compilation, in which case the style doesn't apply, or this is just a weird album that brings up a good question: "What do we do when there is a complete work + other incomplete works?" --cooperaa (Jan 31)
- Let's say this is not a compilation. I would add the omitted works in the release title. But we would need a way to say the work is incomplete --davitof 2007-03-02
- Should releases that simply say "The 5 Piano Concertos" or "The 9 Symphonies" etc be changed to "Piano Concertos Nos. 5" or "Symphonies Nos. 1-9"? --cooperaa (Jan 31)
- I'd answer yes when the titles are so "common". When the title is more original, I don't really know what to choose :-/ --davitof 2007-03-02
- http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6379094 "In a case like that, I would say go with what is on the release." I don't understand, isn't ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle's purpose precisely to edit what was printed, which supposes what was printed was incomplete or incorrect? Is this MusicBrainz or LabelBrainz? When there is a discrepancy, are we recording what the label printed or what is actually recorded in the release? What does matter most, what was printed on the sleeve (and which was correct when it was printed) or what the MB users understand? When I browse a list of releases, I want to have enough elements to pick the correct releases. Imagine that tomorrow someone discovers a new LvB symphony between 5th and 6th. suddenly symphonies 6, 7, 8, 9 become 7, 8, 9, 10. Don't tell me it wouldn't happen, you said so yourself, it is out of our control. What would MB do? Say "when you see these numbers, they can be read in two different ways"? Can you imagine the mess? This would seem ridiculous to me. I think ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle should accept catalogue numbers, without making them mandatory. --davitof (2007-02-02)
- If this happened (and it has happened for other composers), I highly doubt they would renumber LvB's symphonies!! Beethoven's Ninth will forever be known as his Ninth. An earlier composed work will be tacked on to the end, like several of Mozart's (> No. 42) and Haydn's Symphony "A" and "B". --cooperaa (2007-03-05)
- I agree the numbers would probably be kept as they are, but in Dvorak's case, they were changed. Anyhow, let's forget about this argument, there are very few chances a new LvB symphony will be discovered now. --davitof (2007-02-02)
I was bold and added in a strong reference to ReleaseTitle, and cross-references to MultiDiscRelease and BoxSetNameStyle. I don't think I'm changing the essence of the instructions; what we had here follows those other guidelines pretty well. I think the Work_TYPE and Work_ID explanation could benefit from the more worked-out text in ClassicalTrackTitleStyle. Adding this page totoo. --JimDeLaHunt 2007-12-29
Should disc title be before featuring artist?
The suggested ReleaseTitle structure shows DiscNumber [[[Disc Title|DiscTitle]]]] [[[Featuring Artist|FeaturingArtist]]]
The examples show disc number at the end, after featuring artist. I suggest changing one or the other. If the featuring artists vary from disc to disc, these should be placed after the disc number, maybe inside the parentheses.
Here's a release group where the 3rd disc has a different title than the 1st and 2nd discs. The differences are the artists listed in the title. Reasonable differences, since there are additional choruses in the 3rd disc. On the other hand, the title is a bit large. The artists can just be mentioned in additional relationships, or added to disc subtitles. But I don't like having different titles for the 3rd disc. Any suggestions? Here's the problematic release group:
Nereocystis 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)