Style/Principle
Music Brainz Style Principle
Users of MusicBrainz and the members of the StyleCouncil put some great efforts in working out detailed StyleGuidelines, which state how data should be formatted. Since we stress these guidelines, people often get the impression that there is a rule that says: "Always follow the style guidelines".
But this is not true. Instead you should stick to this principle: If you ask yourself in what style something should be entered into MusicBrainz, the following rules apply in this order (strongest on top):
- Follow ArtistIntent.
- If 1 is not applicable, follow StrongGuidelines.
- If neither 1 nor 2 are applicable, use ConsistentOriginalData.
- If 1 nor 2 nor 3 are not applicable, follow the StyleGuidelines.
This can also be explained from the bottom upwards:
- (4) Usually you stick to the StyleGuidelines.
- (3) If, however, something is consistently labelled in a different style on official sources, then this classifies as ConsistentOriginalData and overrules the StyleGuidelines. Note that you need to provide some evidence for ConsistentOriginalData (ideally in the ModerationNote), or your edits will most likely be voted down.
- (2) There are, however, some StrongGuidelines, which overrule even such consistent official style. An example is the AbbreviationStyle, which states that most abbreviations are to be spelled out.
- (1) Finally there is the notion of ArtistIntent. If you can show that the artist intended something to be stylized a special way, then you should enter it like that into the database. Since it is somewhat difficult to find out what the artist intended and there might be controversial views, it is a good practice to discuss this in ModerationNotes or on the UsersMailingList.
- This is yet a ProposedStyleGuideline, although IMO it reflects a long existant consensus (IMO: DonRedman, see discussion below for some dissenting oppinions).
Note to WikiZens:
These items ArtistIntent and ConsistentOriginalData still need to be explained. I don't have the time to do that now.
Also, please link to StylePrinciple from every guideline. This page NeedsIntertwingling massively. --DonRedman
Discussion
I'm a bit biased as this is fuel to lots of arguments, whether what is to be considered ArtistIntent and ConsistentOriginalData. I'd put the StyleGuidelines as rule number one. The StyleGuidelines should be ruled out only if a considerable amount of sources confirm the titles on the release should be spelled exactly as stated. For example, titles can be spelled differently on 2 CD covers, and again different on the artist original website. I think this is more a question of the GFX artist creating the artwork and the website - maybe with, maybe without approval of the Artist. In such cases, sticking to the StyleGuidelines would be the best thing IMO. --G0llum
We seem to agree 100%. You just describe it the other way around. I read your example like this: There does not seem to be any known ArtistIntent, thus #1 does not apply. There is no ConsistentOriginalData (since two covers use different spellings), thus #3 does not apply. Therefore reformat the original data using the StyleGuidelines.
Apart from that, yes, we still need to specify what exactly we mean by ArtistIntent and by ConsistentOriginalData. But hey, these pages do not exist, yet. And I do not think that this will fuel more arguments. These arguents already happen, and this is a kind of meta-guideline for such issues. --DonRedman
What I learned just a little after I started moderating on MB is that StyleGuidelines are sometimes real nasty but necessary, even when they lead to loss of info or when they don't seem proper. Following ArtistIntent or ConsistentOriginalData could be wonderful but I'm sure that if we apply the above mentioned order we will be buried by tons of discussion on every single moderation about what was ArtistIntent and/or ConsistentOriginalData (consistent with what? original from what source?) StyleGuidelines are most of all for consistency but their rude help for moderating is badly needed --ClutchEr2
- There already are discussions about ArtistIntent, but those are very few cases and I think the number of discussions won't increase in the future because a provable and existing ArtistIntent on some of the data is indeed a rare case. But I agree that ConsistentOriginalData is the unhandy beast that might not even be wanted. F.e., if you could proove that the remixes by an artist are always labeled with square brackets or the term "mix" in the the title of a mix is always written with a capital first letter, you would have to use this style because it applies to ConsistentOriginalData. --Fuchs
I reformulated this a bit in a detailed explanation and specified that while ArtistIntent and ConsistentOriginalData are stronger than StyleGuidelines, they entail a burden of proof. That means that you have to proove that there is ConsistentOriginalData or ArtistIntent to overrule the StyleGuidelines.
IMO this page does not introduce anything new but just describes something that is a long existent practice in MusicBrainz. --DonRedman
- I just found out that there was a second page about this subject in the wiki: StyleGuidelineException. Since this one is much better named and better intertwingled, I have moved the content from that page here, and delete the other page. --DonRedman
Style Guideline Exceptions
Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar
As a general rule, we do correct spelling and punctuation and, to a lesser extent, grammar errors in titles.
There are enough cases of record companies mucking up track listings or even artist names (see some of the Front Line Assembly releases sometime), or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes that it makes much more sense to fix these things. I think that we generally value spelling and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy.
That said, this rule does not apply if it can be shown that the intent was for the spelling, punctuation or grammar to be incorrect.
By intent, usually that means something like this:
- The artist themselves stated their intent.
- There is unambigous consensus in the community that the artist wanted it this way.
- A certain misspelling is consistently found in all (official) releases of the artist.
Unfortunately, proving artist intent can be somewhat difficult and so it is often up to the discretion of the editor. If you are in doubt, discuss the issue via ModerationNotes.
Examples
Some notable examples of titles that override the guidelines are:
- Guns 'N' Roses:
- It's been established that the N should always be capitalised per artist preference, as well as having the two apostrophes (which isn't technically incorrect anyway).
- k.d. lang:
- her name should always be spelled with lower case.
(we need more examples).
Discussion
Another good example might be the single 聖なる鐘がひびく夜 by タンポポ - the titles of the three other versions of the song on the single are all solo versions by the group members named (Featuring <member last name>) on the release. They're not collaborations, just solo versions by the group members, so they're a nice example of when not to use the (feat. <artist>) format. Not adding it as an example since some people might have problems with the Japanese, I'll leave it up to others to actually add it if it seems appropriate.
Other examples: eMOTIVe and aMOTION by A Perfect Circle. --zout
- Yary Hluchan posted the following to the MailingList in a discussion about the application of StyleGuidelines. It is a very good example of the reasoning that is intended by the StylePrinciple (Feel free to change this to make it a better example --DonRedman
- My problem with this is not that I disagree entirely, but as I see it, the fundamental difference between the "consistency" people like Kiara and myself on one hand, and the "artist intent" people like DJKC and losten on the other, is what is part of a title. The consistency people see remix and version information as additional metadata that isn't part of the title itself, even if it is added by the artist, with intent, in a particular format. Beyond that, it is entirely too long for this page and needs to be edited down a lot, which I am somewhat reluctant to do, given that I disagree with his conclusions, although I do agree with some of his arguments. I think a link to the e-mail thread is a better choice for this, since it also links to the positions of others on this issue. @alex
My reading from other similar discussions is that the "style reformatting" is used to resolve ambiguities, and having the database reflect what's actually printed on the media takes precedence over consistency. If there's a conflict between what's on the media and a catalog listing, then use the style guide- if the media doesn't say "remix" or "featuring" along with the title but the liner notes do, use the style guide- but if it's clearly written in some way on the disc and in catalogs, then it's the artist's intent and should be entered in the database verbatim.
That's the way the discussions go. There's a push towards having the database internally consistent when it can be, though the real world is messy...
A rule of thumb is to think, "Am I adding, conserving, or destroying information with this style edit?" Right now I'm looking at 7 CDs by Steffan Basho-Junghans, looks like MB has none of his music yet, hmm. 4 have his name in all lowercase, 3 in all uppercase on their spines. Some more research reveals that his name is standard mixed-case. If I add these discs to Music Brainz I will do so in mixed case- information is conserved in this case. The different uses of case on the spine don't tell me anything about the artist.
One of the CDs lists the kind of guitar after each track, but uses a typographic trick that eliminates a space- 6string guitar with a large 6, for example. "6string" isn't a word, but "6 string" is a meaningful phrase, and I can see from the typography (and from listening) the intent. I would add it as "6 string guitar", with the space between "6" and "string". This is adding information- making clear a meaning implied by the typography.
On the same disc, there's a piece in three movements, which I'd probably enter using the ClassicalStyleGuide for a work with movements. After that is a track called "AZURE No1 >> The Suntreader". I may be tempted to enter that as "AZURE No1: The Suntreader" to match the ClassicalStyle of the other songs, or as "Azure #1 (The Suntreader)" to match a typical general release with a subtitle. Both of those lose information- after either of those edits, it's impossible to tell what the artist originally called the work, that he had angle brackets in it, and that he abbreviated "Number 1" as "No1"- which he perhaps intended as an allusion to "no one"?
So back to the ACO-edit in question. I don't have the releases and I'm not a collector of Japanese music. I have seen English releases where the artist gratuitously shuffles the case of the songs on the record (Bob Drake, What Day Is It?) On his own web page, the artist lists a few tracks off it, and he uses traditional case. So I know the CD is mixing case for a certain visual style which I can disregard on entry.
For ACO, the web pages show the track names in the same odd non-English use of case as are entered in the database. I have to take the word of the guy adding the original data that they are listed that way on the disc as well. There's no ambiguity. The strange capitalization (and in some cases, strange spacing) are strange to us because of our relative mastery of English, but that's apparently how the artist wanted it.
Yet another way to think of it- it looks like an English title, but it isn't really. It's a title by and intended for people who primarily speak something else. You can translate it to English trivially by changing the case, but MB doesn't (yet?) have "translated into" records.
