I don’t usually edit anything that involves acoustic versions of originally non-acoustic works, so someone has requested “acoustic” alongside “a cappella”, “instrumental” etc for the recording-work relationship in STYLE-2665 and I’m not quite sure whether it makes sense there or not. It kinda feels like it might, but I thought I’d ask here and get people’s opinions about it!
So: is “RecordingX is an acoustic recording of WorkX” a useful distinction that would make sense at this level?
isn’t this kind of getting out of hand, we’re gonna have all kinds of attributes at this rate, why not “re-work” “sped up” “slowed down” “chopped” “explicit” “clean”
sorry for being mr grumpy but i don’t see why there is a need for this
I prefer having just the version name, as printed, like today.
And it would require a lot lot lot of catch-up edits, for what purpose?
I kind of agree with above… this could open up the flood gates of arguments. Look at the confusions “instrumental” caused as a word.
Adding “acoustic” for something unplugged will then get debates as to whether a vocal only version is “acoustic”. Or if that folk song is acoustic even though no-one thought of doing it on an electric guitar.
Is an orchestra “acoustic”? I guess so. Just like the string quartet… Especially if they do covers of anything that was in the charts.
I’ll join the Mr Grumpy team saying this looks like more trouble than it is worth. And like @jesus2099 I don’t fancy going back over everything again to add the tick boxes.
I guess I’m in the minority, but I don’t really mind the idea of having lots of attributes 
They’re not required to be filled in and editor arguments come with the MB territory (though really clear guidelines could help).
But I understand the positions against.
I personally think there are other more important attributes we should be tracking before any of these auxillary ones are added (although I still stand that they are superfluous).
Important attributes being covered thoroughly here:
The difference being that all of the stuff mentioned in that ticket requires significant code changes, while adding an attribute to a relationship does not 
That said, I get that the main opinion is “maybe don’t” - I do wonder if that should actually be somehow a recording attribute once those are available.
the problem again you’ll fall into is what @IvanDobsky mentioned which is how do you define what “acoustic” is, it’s already hard enough for people to agree what “Karaoke” is.
I think it could be a useful distinction to have, at least in the areas I work in, since I’ve got a lot of acoustic recordings
I think this’d be better as a performance attribute than a recording attribute, since there’s in theory times where multiple works on the same recording could be a mix of acoustic and non-acoustic (DJ/continuous mixes and compilation recordings in particular)
in fact, I wonder if all attributes that apply to the performance of the work (acoustic, remix, radio edit) should be applied here on the work relationship, while any recording attributes not related to the work (digital recording, stereo, 5.1 mix, maybe BPMs) should be applied to the recording alone
Once there are too many options to fit on the screen it will need code changes.
This has already become reality for small screens that previously were still fine for MB editing.
I am not sure what is meant by acoustic in this context. Could you give me some examples.
a good example I know of is Fully Alive by Flyleaf. both versions were actually included on some versions of their self-titled album, the original version:
…and the acoustic version:
another popular example is MTV’s Unplugged series, which Nirvana had a popular recording on
these are obvious but then the questions are like Ivan posed what if the track is originally acoustic - do you then mark it as such. What if its an original piece that uses entirely acoustic instruments like a piano, guitar and drums - that wouldn’t normally be “(acoustic)” just whatever the track is called. What about if its a previously acoustic track that is now “amplified”, like a folk song played on an electric guitar?
personal opinion (possibly not the same as the ticket creator), this should only be used for acoustic recordings of non-acoustic songs, be they by the original artist or an acoustic cover (a very common occurrence, perhaps moreso than the former). I wouldn’t count orchestral covers or if the original is acoustic as “acoustic”
please don’t think I’m trying to be mean here, you know that I’m normally up for any kind of additional data tracking but you’ve just explained why this is a problem: “personal opinion” this is just going to be another constant strain to maintain and manage; even if we say “it must say (acoustic)” in the recording title people will just ignore that and abuse its usage.
I understand, questions like that are important to figuring out how the style should work~
(also, I meant personal opinion as in it’s how I think the attribute should be used, if that wasn’t clear)
Saw an example today that drops into the grey area. Band played a track on an album with instruments that were not plugged in. Like most of the tracks on that album. This is the only version they recorded. Track later appears on a compilation with added ETI of (acoustic version).
This leads to “this should only be used for acoustic recordings of non-acoustic songs” would clash with “it must say (acoustic) in the recording title".
To confuse this more… I think there is actually a keyboard on this track that is plugged in… 
Part of my thoughts is not everything drops into neat boxes. All the grey stuff will lead to arguments.
To be very blunt, imo the question should be:
For the people who would find an acoustic flag useful, does it matter if some cases are debated/it is not always perfect.
Not:
For the people who don’t care about having a acoustic flag, what are the imperfections you can think of.
However, since MusicBrainz is massively reliant and indebted to core editors, who clearly skew towards needing all the surrounding data to work and make sense for them (this is not a negative attribute, it’s why we are good editors and why the database rules), maybe it nonetheless makes sense for these types of potentially stress-causing additions to be blocked.
Slight tangent, a solution might be to move these kinds of potentially nebulous attributes into another tag whitelist, like with genre. That seems to function well for genres and, because it’s not possible to perfectly curate, also does not promise the same kind of specificity and accuracy to the end user.
As a person who uses “acoustic” as a tag in my own files, I’m against it being a recording-work attribute because of how arbitrary and subjective it is. I’d find a “remix” attribute to be more useful.