Vinyl albums can have sequentially listed tracks, regardless of sides (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
Change proposal:
Releases can have sequentially listed track positions, regardless of sides or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
xjoxjox
Vinyl albums and/or multiple-item releases can have sequentially listed tracks, regardless of sides and/or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
Not sure if the guideline proposal is sound, wouldn't it be better to replace "vinyl albums" for "releases", i don't see why this could not be applicable to either EP's or cassetes &etc.
xjoxjox
Change proposal:
Vinyl albums and/or multiple-item releases can have sequentially listed tracks, regardless of sides and/or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
No - this is wrong.
xjoxjox
Example: Overkill - Wrecking Your Neck - Live
Your example is edited incorrect.
CD2's or CD3's etc do not start with the next number on from the last number of the previous CD.
You put the CDs in a player, they *always* begin with track 1.
Furthermore, if your reasoning was just, then the EP should be numbered '3-24, 3-25...' which is just wrong-diddley-wrong!
I don't see any merit in a track listing that goes 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-4, 2-5, 3-6, 3-7....
What purpose would it serve?
Can you explain the reason for the change (I don't think that example you gave is reason enough)?
in principle i am OK with the proposed guideline change.
however, i want to make a suggestion that will hopefully
clear the air a bit:
xjoxjox
, but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
this. can we please remove this part?
adding this note to the Release Notes (not Submission Notes) adds, in
my view, clutter to the notes section - clutter that does not deal with the
release at hand directly, nor does it expand the information provided, but
rather addresses an 'in-house' rule, the one regarding Standard Positions A1-B1
-
in other words, i fail to see how this piece of extra-data in the Release Notes
will help in any way the casual browser (and it's also used by rank-hunters.)
same as with "track-durations not listed on the release", i feel this information
would be better represented in the Submission Notes (away from public eyes)
so my suggestion would be either: a) change the word from Release to Submission
or b) remove it altogether (and at the same time strengthening the ''positions from
release are preferred" + "where no positions are provided, please use the Discogs
standard of A1, A2 .. B1, B2")
anyway, this 'extra bit' of guideline comes from days long gone, when the database
used to handle primarily Electronic 12"s, not your average Prog, Folk or Classical LP
Why would we need a legalese expression here? Is it a binding contract that we should be aware of?
A simple "or" will do perfectly because the particular scenario will be usually even based on the "either, or" logic, but hardly on the "and" logic.
Other than that it sounds OK to me.
glass
adding this note to the Release Notes (not Submission Notes) adds, in my view, clutter to the notes section - clutter that does not deal with the release at hand directly, nor does it expand the information provided, but
Disagree. Having it mentioned upfront as part of the data is important. The data is being used elsewhere and release histories/comments are not accessible via API.
loukash
Having it mentioned upfront as part of the data is important. The data is being used elsewhere and release histories/comments are not accessible via API.
i seriously do not understand what you are trying to say.
what's 'data is being used elsewhere' and how does a note regarding 'sequential tracklist across sides' help anyone with anything (or API)?
xjoxjox
- RSG §12.2.6. fits perfectly for vinyl but lacks the wording for CD's.
I don't believe guidelines will be changed for just those one or two releases that fall outside the guidelines.
With the Madonna CD, I believe the track listing should stay as it is and the release notes should say 'tracks across the 2 CDs are numbered sequentially on the liner notes'.
Releases can have sequentially listed tracks, regardless of sides or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
I'm not really a fan of extended sequential listing to CD's, but I am also not really a fan of them being on vinyl releases either.
Though, with vinyl, it makes some sense, you look at the release and the numbering corresponds with what's on the release and you can see that as you're playing it.
However, with CD's, I don't think that the CD player starts at track 2-3 or whichever artistic decision was made by the artist.
Every track could / does / should have a simple track index number. the index number is a track's "key" number, the entered track "number" is the displayed track data for track identification purposes. So, the system already does have two distinct track numbering systems, we just don't have access to, or "see", the internal track index number. I don't know if this is exposed by the API but I suspect it must be.
Couldn't the "1,2,3, ... info simply be made visible or optional?
I like the proposed change, but I think it should clarify that it should only be in use when also following 12.2.2 - if a release (CD, Vinyl, Whatever) lists the tracks as 1-20 on all the packaging, we should be able to reflect both that and which side/disc the track is on. Which is, I think, the point of 12.2.6 anyway. If that's not the point it's a useless guideline entirely because even in Vinyl you play the first track on that side of the record, a digital display isn't a defining difference between the concepts.
Unsure why Arochfa masde that edit, it;s EI. The guideline are not only fine, but very clear. I see no reason for adjustment, if someone has trouble, we have forums, search and guideline section.
xjoxjox
Releases can have sequentially listed track positions, regardless of sides or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
Thumbs up from me. Current guideline somehow neglects cassettes, but should obviously apply to them as well. I also think it should apply to other formats, I see no reason why it should be exclusive to vinyl/sided formats.
xjoxjox
Releases can have sequentially listed track positions, regardless of sides or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
xjoxjox
Releases can have sequentially listed track positions, regardless of sides or item number (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8, 1-1, 1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-7, 4-8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
jweijde
Why is this change needed ? Also considering that we already have RSG §12.2.2.
And at RSG §12.2.6.Vinyl releases can have sequentially listed tracks, regardless of sides (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.
Horny for threads about that?
An example, we have RSG §12.2.2.
but side info is always A and B RSG §12.2.7..
And every half year is here a thread about that )-:
rergards
