I was aiming for brevity given people are tacking this detail onto the track titles. If we’re talking about:
- releases that have track names that include the mix - then sure, go with the release
- releases such as SACDs that have entire media with a different mix but do not attribute this information to the track title - is the track title the best place for this kind of differentiation? I say differentiation because an SACD cover will often say something like: “Stereo and 5.1 Surround Mixes”. Now, we don’t currently put the words “Stereo” in the track titles - I infer this is because we’re calling out “non-normal” tracks (tracks that are not stereo).
IOW, if we’re trying to be true to the release (verbatim), then on many releases the mix information does not belong on the track title at all (perhaps on the recording title), AND somewhere we should be capturing the words “Stereo” or whatever, because many releases say this.
But if we’re merely differentiating mixes from the “default” stereo mixes (remember, all tracks are mixes), AND you want to maintain using the track title for such a purpose, then all it has to do is be different. I agree that even if this is captured in a style guide it would still be hard to police.
Anyway, food for thought possibly. I’m not a fan of using track titles for mix details when it’s not specified that way on a release but I’ve learned to live with it. MB has this odd insistence on being as verbatim as possible for some fields, and free and easy with others. I’m not going to die on that that hill.
PS. I just saw that Alice Cooper cover. Does anyone think that adding “(QUAD Multichannel 4.0 mix)” onto every track title is a great idea? I mean, it’s already tautological.