This recording:
is a shorter, single edit of the LP version. On the actual single releases, it’s titled simply “I Just Wanna Be Loved”. However, there is one promotional release calling the same recording “I Just Wanna Be Loved (LP edit)” along with some other mixes. There are other versions too, so I added a disambiguation (“LP edit”) to the recording to tell them apart.
The issue is, on the promo release page, it shows up as “I Just Wanna Be Loved (LP Edit) (LP Edit)”:
because it displays the title and the disambiguation immediately after (albeit in gray). That doesn’t bother me, but someone has voted against it because they say it’s redundant information. I believe it’s not, because they are two distinct pieces of information. One is the actual title, one is a clarification of which recording it is. If it were the only release to contain that recording, a disambiguation comment wouldn’t be necessary, but it’s not. It also appears on this release:
and possibly others.
If I leave it in the title for accuracy, but leave it out of the disambiguation for clarity, someone is going to miss that info on that second release. If I put it in the disambiguation field and remove it from the title, then the first release is not accurately entered.
I’ll link to it here for votes, but I’d really like to hear some opinions on it as well. When I first started using Musicbrainz, I’m sure I changed some titles instead of leaving disambiguation comments because I didn’t grasp some of the concepts of the site. But now I understand the titles should be exactly as they appear on the release, and the disambiguation should be used to clarify if there are duplicate titles that reference different recordings. That’s correct, no?
1 Like
Yes, track titles should generally reflect a printed tracklist while the recording should use the most common / original title. Disambiguation comments are useful where multiple recordings by the same artist have the same name. It sounds like you’ve done the right thing
[edit]
But having looked, the problem is that you’re adding ETI in the edit that has been no-voted https://musicbrainz.org/edit/39325088
When you’ve also added a disambiguation comment to the recording.
So the recording has the info twice, it’s not about how it looks in the tracklists
“But having looked, the problem is that you’re adding ETI in the edit that has been no-voted https://musicbrainz.org/edit/39325088
When you’ve also added a disambiguation comment to the recording.”
Yes, that’s the reason for the discussion. The ETI is in the title of the single release. It’s not in the title of the compilation release. Therefore, we either have no disambiguation, which wouldn’t help with the compilation, or we have the single track look a bit awkward with the repeated information in both the title and the disambiguation. It’s not that the data is wrong, it’s the way the web site displays the information.
I think you’re confusing what you’re editing. The track for the single has the title with the extra information and the recording has the disambiguation comment. In the edit I linked you are adding extra information to the recording title. Therefore the recording would have the information twice.
What is displayed in the tracklist is irrelevant to what the recording title and disambiguation are. There are often different titles between track and recording. However, as it currently is, it is exactly as you want it; the tracklist for the compilation already shows the disambiguation comment you made and the tracklist for the single has the title with ETI. You aren’t changing either.
3 Likes
Yup, I just figured that out, as I posted on the edit. I was absolutely confused. Please accept my explanation and apologies as posted in the edit.
4 Likes