On 10/18/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/10/18, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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
Not so sure. A box set of Mozart's complete works comes to mind... But
I agree this is very rare. It should only be used if the performers
change from disc to disc.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
The performer/conductor information that we add to Classical releases
is not part of the Release Title. I would argue that disc numbers are
"part" of the release title, or at lease more so than performer
information. I like the second format:
"Big Works (disc 1) (Timbuktu Philharmomic feat. conductor Fred Nertz)"
This way, when a large box set has different performers they are still
sorted in the correct order, according to disc number. Just picture
this:
"ReleaseTitle (ABC Orchestra feat. conductor: WhatsHerName) (disc 3)"
"ReleaseTitle (DEF Orchestra feat. conductor: SoAndSo) (disc 1)"
"ReleaseTitle (GHI Orchestra feat. conductor: TheUglyOne) (disc 2)"
--
-Aaron
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
