To my understanding there is an inconsistency in the rules for adding hidden tracks to a release:
12.17.2. Hidden tracks on CDs are usually made as one audio track with two songs/tunes and an area of blank space in between. List a hidden track on a CD like so:
1 A Song (7:54)
2 The Other Song (6:43) 3.1 A Final Song (14:29) ???
3.2 The Hidden Song (6:08)
And add a small explanation to the release notes, for example: "Track 3 contains a hidden track (track 3.2). Track 3.1 lasts for 7:13 ??? before a period of silence."
What rule shall be followed for track 3.1, the total time or the actual track time for the first track??
Yeah, you're pointing out an issue I always had with that guideline too.
If we stick to the paradigm, that ultimately the audio work supersedes any kind of descriptive or meta information - as has recently been outlined here...
nik
the track time should represent the accurately measured timing of the actual audio work
...it would follow that the above example would better be entered as:
3.1 A Final Song (7:31)
3.2 The Hidden Song (6.08)
With a release note going something like "There is a 0:50 period of silence between 3.1 and 3.2", or similar.
And I would really prefer it like that, since it would show the durations of the actual songs in the tracklisting, which is what everyone sees first.
And ultimately this whole site is about the music, and less the gaps that might appear between it. ;-)
fisonic
3.1 A Final Song (7:31)
3.2 The Hidden Song (6.08)
With a release note going something like "There is a 0:50 period of silence between 3.1 and 3.2", or similar.
Agreed. But it would be nice to list the silence between the 2 songs in the tracklist too. This is already allowed for blank tracks, and there would be no need for extra notes to explain the situation.
So I think it would be a good thing if the guidelines allow listing hidden tracks as:
3.1 A Final Song (7:13)
3.2 (silence) (1:08)
3.3 The Hidden Song (6:08)
In this example the CD player would show the total time of 14:29 for track 3 ( 7:13 + 1:08 + 6:08 )
I'm not sure I see an inconsistency in the rule itself. It may be that the RSG example needs further explanation to be made clear.
This is what I was told (by Nik himself I believe in an old thread):
A physical track is split into two (or sometimes more) pieces of music. In order for the hidden track to be a suprise a gap of silence is usually (but not always) introduced in order to create the 'suprise'!
In a 2 track (1 revealed, 1 hidden) scenario the total time up to the playing of the second (hidden part) is entered for the first track. Then the hidden track time is entered. The time of the revealed track (minus the silence) is then noted.
The advantage of this is that the tracklist contains all the tracks (as it should) and the durations of all the tracks add up to the total time of the disc (no time is "missing", just as no tracks should be "missing" either).
The example in the RSG may be bad inasmuch as the total time for the 1st (revealed) track exceeds that of the hidden track, so to some it may be interpreted as summing the total playing time for the whole of the final track [revealed + space between + hidden], this I believe is an unintentional thing. Maybe the example needs to be based on a 2min last track, 1mins silence, 5min hidden track?
hafler3o
the durations of all the tracks add up to the total time of the disc
I can see your point. But again, this comes down to the same decision: Do we want to let the music take priority, or the physical medium?
If it's an either/or decision, I'd vote for the music.
In the thread I quoted above, the decision was towards the music (or more general: audio). That means, it would make sense for the durations to add up to the duration of the sole music on the disc.
But like I said: I think your point makes sense too. Thus, I think Ronaldvd's proposal would be the perfect solution! The durations would add up to the effective playing time of the whole medium, and you could still see the actual song's durations at a glance.
The hidden track is only noted in the release notes. I do recall the LP did have the track listed only in the runout grooves, and it's not listed on the CD at all.
I had asked this question about a CD I was trying to submit with a hidden track a while back, and was told to do it in this manner (which is apparently not correct from what I'm reading). This one has a final song, a long space, the hidden track, then another long silence and then a rude remark from one of the band :
Yes that is not correct, but it was entered in that form over 4 years ago (which may have something to do with it).
the final track should be split and the hidden track added as 'Untitled' I assume as I personally don't own it.
Interestingly in electronic genres there are arguments over whether a track just contains a lot of silence with 'something' happening late on, or the late activity IS something supposedly hidden.
On a more common release Radiohead's Kid A the final track has silence then a short Ambient 'piece' ensues. I seeing this described in Q magazine review (UK) as a hidden track but I've not looked into it further so at the moment it sits in the database as this Kid A which I believe to be 'nearly' listed correct.
In a 2 track (1 revealed, 1 hidden) scenario the total time up to the playing of the second (hidden part) is entered for the first track. Then the hidden track time is entered. The time of the revealed track (minus the silence) is then noted.
Got you, however I consider myself not a n00b here and I have used this rule several times but whenever I get back to it, it confuses me again. So either the wording should be reconsidered as a casual will most likely not get this right or we should maybe find a different solution for it, if it cannot be explained better. Or you might blame it on the onset of Alzheimer's in my brain....what did I just say?
12.17.2. Hidden tracks on CDs are usually made as one audio track with two songs/tunes and an area of blank space in between. List a hidden track on a CD like so:
1 A Song (7:54)
2 The Other Song (6:43)
3.1 A Final Song (14:29) < include audio length plus silence in track duration.
3.2 The Hidden Song (6:08)
And add a small explanation to the release notes, for example: "Track 3 contains a hidden track (track 3.2). Track 3.1 pure audio lasts for 7:13 before a period of silence."
Nice, but let's take it one step further and standardize the usage and syntax:
Method A (ultimate)
3.1 A Final Song (7:13)
3.2 [Silence] (1:08)
3.3 [The Title Of The Hidden Song] (6:08)
...if the title of the hidden song is known, using [square] brackets to
a) indicate those hidden/silent tracks, and
b) to coincide with our existing use of "Keyboards [Uncredited]" or "Producer [Produced By And All That]" type of credit role enhancers.
Method B (closer)
3.1 A Final Song (7:13)
3.2 [Silence] (1:08)
3.3 [Hidden Track] (6:08)
...taking care to use "reserved key titles" [Silence] and [Hidden Track] to indicate them (using square brackets for the reasons given above). In this example above the title of the hidden song is not known.
Any release notes like "CD player shows the total time of 14:29 for track 3 (7:13 + 1:08 + 6:08)" would, although accurate, become redundant and, as a bonus feature for trainspotters, it'd be possible to actually search for releases containing [Hidden Track]s.
However, as per another thread, this does require that the submitter manually times the duration as a CD player/computer would only reveal the duration of 14:29 for the entire "track" (and not its individual pieces, as indicated).
Method C (vague)
1 A Song (7:54)
2 The Other Song (6:43)
3 A Final Song (14:29) <- total track duration as per CD player
...with release notes to the effect of "the final track includes a hidden and untitled song that starts after several seconds of silence).
Method D (vaguest) would be the submitter who lists the track titles as given, with no durations nor mention of any hidden tracks.
Here we go: four standardized methods to indicate this (the most common kind) of hidden track.
Just use notes to give the name in all instances. IE simplify the RSG further to disallow track titles that do not appear (after all they're meant to be hidden!)
there is a difference between an untitled and a hidden track, often the hidden track will be untitled ... but there are also many tracks that are untitled and not hidden, and I don't talk about white label releases.
showing this in brackets to make it searchable would be a good idea, but it won't work if a hidden track has got a known name. A known name of a hidden track should be named in the tracklist. Also I know at least two Artists that have "Untitled" as an actual Songname. To differentiate these and make it searchable we should use brackets and give subtitles, like this:
1 A Song
2 (untitled)
3 Another Song
4 Untitled
5 Next Song
6.1 The Last Song
6.2 (silence)
6.3 (untitled) [hidden]
6.4 (silence)
6.5 The Well Known Hidden Song [hidden]
Untitled song that don't has a (known) name will be (untitled), natural silence will become (silence), the lower case being intentional to differentiate to a Song that has the name "Silence" or "Untitled".
Mop66
12.17.2. Hidden tracks on CDs are usually made as one audio track with two songs/tunes and an area of blank space in between.
Nope, - that's a hidden song (or in some cases hidden audio).
A hidden track is on a CD with a 12-track tracklist, - but player finding 13 tracks on disc.
An untitled song is on a 14-track tracklist, with one of the track-titles left blank.
Please distinguish.
JustinCredible
A known name of a hidden track should be named in the tracklist.
Disagree, - better:
hafler3o
I prefer to have the untitled track untitled.
Some thoughts about titling the additional content.
The title of the 'hidden' track should be treated in the same manner as we would treat other tracks that aren't titled on the release itself. E.g. white-labels without anything written, printed or stickered on it.
For consistency with rule 12.17.3., I would suggest to list the gap like:
3.2 (no audio) (1:08)
