History talk:Live Track Style

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 20:17, 16 May 2011 by Kuno (talk | contribs) (Talk:Live Track Style moved to History talk:Live Track Style)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Ordering of live attributes: if a track is acoustic and live, I think it should have (live, acoustic, date: location) or similar appended to it, although this looks a bit clumsy. I am certain, though, that live should be before acoustic. Any nicer-looking suggestions? --MichelleW

This is a lot of text to burden the title with. I could see the usefulness on a bootleg, where it may be difficult to establish the information from liner notes/discographies (if any) but it seems like overkill for official releases where the information is more readily available through other means.

Perhaps a better way to handle this would be to extend the release data to individual tracks as well as release? (Although that only gives you country-level resolution on the location) --Dupuy

This proposal is partly to counteract the problem of having different live versions of a track on the same release. Often the tracknames get amended to "Trackname 1", "Trackname 2" or random variations thereof ("(1)", ", 1" etc.) I agree it's rather bulky though. --MichelleW

For jazz recordings it is quite usual to label them "(take 1)", "(take 2)" etc. so I would not mind that. Following the general idea of the Style Guidelines such information should be in brackets and lower case. Isn't that enough? --DonRedman

I think separation of the venue and location is needed rather than commas delimiting both venue, city and country. I would also omit the state for the US, the city and country are suffice, the state is seldom included. Sometimes the day is not available, in those instances I would use 1970-04. --Dave

  • I thought the state was quite useful for the US, since there's so many cities with the same name (Springfield, for example) --ZeroGravitas

For live tracks on a live release, I feel that putting the location, date, etc information in the release annotation is enough. Putting it in the track title would make it really bulky. Maybe something could be made as an add-on for release annotations for live albums, kind of what Dupuy was suggesting, for a release attribute per track, but in a (fixed) annotation form? --Sambalbij

  • Release date != performance date. Sometimes if tracks on normal release where released before the liner notes say something like "all tracks released under blah instead of track X released under foo in (some date)". For this a release date would be correct but normally this is better done by linking this track to the original release via AR. So what we whould need if ever was a performance date/venue field. But I think this would be a little overkill. Annotations/comments are enough for this. And as we don't have this yet for tracks I agree that release annotations or this style guideline are the way to do it (with a small preference for the guideline but mostly I'd follow Artist Intent on the covers). --Shepard

I agree with Sambalbij, location, date, etc information in the release annotation is EXACTLY where such information should go. In the case of a non-album track, than the information should be as simple (such as something simple as mm/dd/yy) as possible to prevent long file names. Dates and cities are NOT part of the name of the track. Its a note and should be treated as such. --BrianG

A thought: Windows Media Player says there's a "Recording Date" field. Not sure where venue would go, though. --MichelleW

Now that we have Track Annotation, it may be better to add all date and venue information in Track Annotation... Also what is the status of this Style Guideline? Is there a RFC/RFV somewhere? -- murdos 07:49, 03 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I would definitely agree if Track Annotations would show on the release page (or at least some indication there is a Track Annotation) - there's a ticket for that (2594). Right now, not being able to see in one look where the tracks were recorded totally disqualify Track Annotation for that use IMHO. As for the status of this page, I guess it's "Style council limbo" :-). -- dmppanda 12:38, 03 April 2007 (UTC) murdos: The only RFC/RFV I have found is from a post by zout to the Style Council in April 2006, and the discussion which followed. --kuno.

I would tend to disagree with precluding the use of this style on releases set as "Live". There's been significant discussion in the Nirvana bootlegs regarding whether releases which contain 2 or more shows, not as bonus tracks, but as 2+ shows on a CD, ought to be considered Live or Compilation. If these are considered as Live, and this style guideline excludes it's use on Live releases, then there would be no way to properly document (apart from the annotation) which tracks on such releases are from which shows. -- BrianFreud

  • Annotations are explicitely meant to document such information. I see no problem with that. -- dmppanda 11:09, 04 May 2007 (UTC)