Since we are apparently connoisseurs of netiquette here, first let me point out that
1) It is not polite to take something mailed off-list and put it on-list. 2) You should trim your responses so that only the relevant portions are included. On Wed, October 18, 2006 2:00 pm, Aaron Cooper said: > > My argument is that the disc numbers are *closer* to being part of the > name of the release than MB's special performer information and > therefore, should follow the name of the release (before performer > information). I don't understand how you can argue that this: > > [first scenario] > The Nine Symphonies (Georg Solti) (disc 3) > The Nine Symphonies (George Szell) (disc 1) > The Nine Symphonies (George Szell) (disc 2) > > ... is better than this: > > [second scenario] > The Nine Symphonies (disc 1) (George Szell) > The Nine Symphonies (disc 1) (Georg Solti) > The Nine Symphonies (disc 2) (George Szell) > > ... ever! The first scenario is *so* bad, it shouldn't matter how > infrequently we see the second scenario! I don't see how the first scenario is bad at all - it's fine! You seem hung up on what is "essentially" part of the title, when really Classical releases generally have no fixed title - what's on the cover is usually different from what's on the spine, etc. Here at MB the performer information is a very important part of the title because it is needed to differentiate the release from other recordings of the same repertory. (If we had label/cat differentiation that would also help, but we don't.) -DS _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style