I'd rather keep it in the track name as well; if we'd keep it for hidden
tracks with a known name, I don't see why unknown tracks should be treated
differently.
As I see it, the differences between tracks and recordings should happen
when the differing information is relevant in the context of the release but
not as an standalone recording, or vice-versa (e.g. a (live) indicator
included in the track name on an otherwise-studio album, but not in the
recording, where this information is included in the comment). In this case,
the fact that there's an extra song included in a track is very relevant to
the release, even if not listed on the cover.
2011/10/9 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
Hello,
This question came up in a recent thread, so I thought it useful to discuss
it separately. When a track contains a listed song and an unlisted one (such
as in http://musicbrainz.org/release/c2cc70af-45f3-4702-825f-1b647315b9fa),
the documentation
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Unknown_and_untitled/Special_purpose_track_titlesuggests
to use the printed titled followed by [unknown] for the hidden
song. But this guide was written pre-NGS. Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren suggests
that the track title should actually stay as printed and the [unknown]
mention should only appear in the recording. What to other users think?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
