From the three releases I have raised previously, this style guide does not seem to have been followed…
1 Like
I would be very opposed to this. Would you also have alternative tracklistings for artists putting track numbers in the titles on retailers? Classical releases that have both composers and all the performers as track artists? Everything sold on Beatport would have an alternative tracklisting that just adds “(original mix)” to the end of everything sold there that doesn’t have a mix title.
I think encouraging storing data in alternative tracklistings that would otherwise be considered malformed is not a good idea for a database and is a misuse of the feature.
4 Likes
It’s hard for something to be a misuse of the feature when we haven’t yet even put together any guidelines about how the feature should be used 
But having a way to keep things exactly as printed for people who dislike standardization was one of the things proposed already a long time ago as a use of the feature.
8 Likes
After all this discussion, it seems to me that there is no advantage in going to the trouble of removing the ETI.
For my part, I think the ETI should be retained as per the actual release, even if it is somewhat redundant.
The style guidance says the following
”Additional information on a release or track name that is not part of its main title, but intended to distinguish it from different releases or tracks with the same main title (such as version/remix names or live recording info), should be entered in parentheses after the main title."
2 Likes
I added the first emphasise, up above (intended to distinguish […] tracks with the same main title).
It’s made for when your release has several different tracksets (one studio the other live, or anything else that kind), when the same track title appears twice or more, but of course the audio is another version (live, studio, acoustic, original, remix, karaoke, orchestral, etc.).
4 Likes
So are you saying that ETI should be removed if the track listings do not have the same songs as in these releases?
1 Like
From @IvanDobsky on 2025-01-20 21:07 GMT+1:
Simply put. A live album does not need (live version) on every track in a track list. It is a live album. Therefore the tracks are obviously live.
And I would add from the same live.
But you second example here had tracks from several different live or studio live sessions, so they are useful.
On your first example we don’t have the same version on all tracks, either, so they are useful.
4 Likes
I think it contradicts this statement of yours.
I don’t see contradiction.
I’m showing various cases where comments are useful.
But when 100% track comments would be same as the release title (cf. OP), then it’s more useless, redundant, cluttering, bogus. 
6 Likes
You say “when the same track title appears twice or more”.
The example I gave does not include tracks with the same track title. However, they are given ETIs. Thus, there is a contradiction.
I don’t see contradiction, I see several valid cases, when (disambiguation) comments are welcome:
- Different recordings of same work, on the same medium, like in the guideline
- Different kinds of recordings on the same medium
3 Likes
The style guidance states that “Additional information on a release or track name that is not part of its main title, but intended to distinguish it from different releases or tracks with the same main title (such as version/remix names or live recording info), should be entered in parentheses after the main title.
Also, there is no guideline that says “if all tracks have the same ETI, delete that ETI”.
https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles
In addition, Style / Release states “If several versions of a title are provided, such as when the release title differs between cover and spine, or the track titles differ between the back cover and a booklet tracklist, it’s generally better to follow the more detailed one.
https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release
In summary, there are no guidelines for deliberately deleting ETIs, there is no basis for deleting them, and it would be more natural to follow the guidelines and not delete them.
1 Like
That is nothing to do with track lists. That is talking about the album title.
As noted many times above, it may not be written down, but the general accepted policy for many years is not to blindly follow how a digital shop has listed tracks when there is pointlessly repeated ETI. “If a common ETI phrase is repeated on every track of a release it should not be part of the track title. ”
6 Likes
Track titles are also mentioned.
I question this practice itself. So it cannot be an argument against me.
1 Like
Then you would also keep (remastered), at the end of all tracks in this download album, below?
In keeping with the actual release, I think I should
I’m not sure which releases you refer to, but the ones you listed at Extra title information for live release - #8 by yakumo0209 all do indicate live info per track. Otherweise I wouldn’t really know what we are talking about here. The second release mentions the (always same) artist and venue, which also seems to be fine.
The important point here is that these ETI are not artist intent, but streaming service requirements. And they just shoehorn all that metadata into the title field due to lack of more structured data.
There is no need to copy this to MB, where there is actually a proper structure to indicate live performances and even date and venue for it.
9 Likes
I do not know why you guys think this way.
As the style says, if there is a conflict, you are to follow the more detailed one. You guys are doing the opposite.
Hasn’t it been well explained already here in this very thread?
Anyways, you can do whatever you want with your own files and tags, just please follow the advise given by many respected and experienced community members - including our Style Lead - here on MB.
5 Likes
The problem is that you are talking about digital streaming sites. Not physical mediums. You’ll never see this type of ETI repeated on all tracks on a physical medium release. As explained before. Apple Music & Spotify both can have the same exact release, but will have the ETI presented in different ways. It’s the shop, not the artist that is dictating this. There are scripts available that will copy disambiguation as ETI for Picard. If that doesn’t work for you, you can always manually edit your release. Sorry, but MB community obviously doesn’t want the same ETI on every track on a live release that has the same name. Not sure why you don’t see this. This isn’t likely going to change.
8 Likes