On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:40:08PM +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2006/10/18, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >As far as I can tell, the current style guideline information doesn't
> >have any examples covering the intersection of DiscNumberStyle and
> >ClassicalStyleGuide. Which order should the information mandated by
> >each go, that is should it be:
> >
> > Big Works (Timbuktu Philharmomic feat. conductor Fred Nertz) (disc 1)
> >or
> > Big Works (disc 1) (Timbuktu Philharmomic feat. conductor Fred Nertz)
> >
> >I think the first option is more logical - particularly if the discs
> >of the release appear together in a list it's more quickly obvious
> >that they are discs of the same release if the variable part is at the
> >end.
> >
> >It's a little less obvious when the disc number includes a disc title
> >as well, and several release of this type have been entered the other
> >way around recently.
> >
>
> My first reaction was to agree with you. This would be better for
> sorting: all the discs of a same release would come together if you
> put the performers before, which seems a good feature. But there might
> be exceptions if the performers change from disc to disc...
Yes.. but the same group of performers would be the more common case.
And if we put disc number last where it is the only changing part, we
should probably put it last always, for consistency. I can't think of
a (non-contrived) case where putting the disc number before the
perfomer info is actually better, only cases where it makes no
difference or is worse.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
