Difference between revisions of "Talk:Style/Titles/OC ReMix series"
(New page: This contents of this page is derived from discussions on the mailing lists: [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-September/000405.html http://lists.musicbrainz.o...)
Revision as of 15:27, 15 March 2009
This contents of this page is derived from discussions on the mailing lists: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-September/000405.html, http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-October/000502.html
This style guideline doesn't reflect the official specification at OC Re
Mix. I asked about this discrepency in the #ocremix channel, and all I got was hostility:
- <cparker> Hi, I noticed something about the ID3 info in the mp3's downloaded from OCRe
Mix... The formats of the titles there don't match the format agreed upon at MusicBrainz: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OCReMixStyle <cparker> Which title format should be used??? <Ferret> cparker: you're overanalyzing it. all of the remixes contain tagging which was done to site standards, not musicbrainz. <[Smoke]> And just for reference <[Smoke]> http://www.ocremix.org/info/Detailed_ID3v2_Tag_Specification <[Smoke]> This is the official standard tagging specification <cparker> Hmmm... Perhaps the MusicBrainz OCReMixStyle should be changed, then... <[Smoke]> Yes, it's inaccurate as fuck <Ferret> And pretentiously so. <cparker> So then djpretzel's own opinion doesn't matter? http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-September/000405.html <cparker> ...just making sure before I go and propose an update to the MB Style Council.
I didn't get any sort of an answer after that. This style guideline should probably be fixed to match this line in the official standard tagging specification (the lines that pertain to OCRe
Mix are highlighted in red on that page):
4.2.1 TT2 Title/Songname/Content description ALWAYS = Exact name of Game [space] Exact name of Re
Mix [space] OC Re
Mix E.G. Actraiser Fillmore Funk OC Re
Either that, or djpretzel should update his specification to match the style guideline described on this very page, based on the mailing list discussions, which stem directly from his input on the matter.
Also, is it possible to have a thousand-track album? If so, then all OC Re
Mix tracks should be moved over to one album, which is how djpretzel said he wanted it to be presented.
- And I finally thought we had this figured out :( I don't think it should be change without clarification from DJP, though. It would certainly be nice for MB and OCR to be 100% consistant to the extent that's possible. A 1500-track album isn't realistic at present because albums are displayed on a single page, and the text for each table row can approach 1 KB, therefore the "Album" page would be over a megabyte, in addition to be completely unpresentable. I don't think it would work so hot in Picard, either. Even if these limitations could be overcome, there's the second problem that there can't be "gaps" in an album, ie. track numbers with no track associated with them. Quite a few tracks have been removed from OCR, so for each of these, the tracks after it would have their "track number" reduced from their actual OCR number. Also, I don't think it makes much sense to put a number in the "Track number" field anyways, because the files distributed by OCR don't. It would be nice if MB had some way to represent a grouping of tracks apart from an "Album". --loopy
We could group into albums representing OCR's distribution collections (1-250, 251-500, 501-750, 751-1000, 1001-1250, 1250-current; last I checked). --SailorLeo