Should a recording title include an umlaut when the release had none?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fbb3a1431e0> #<Tag:0x00007fbb3a143118> #<Tag:0x00007fbb3a143050> #<Tag:0x00007fbb3a142f88>

Hi all,

this recording on the release’s included notes has “HANSEL AND GRETEL” as the title (followed by a subtitle in both German and, parenthetically, English).

The title was subsequently changed from “Hansel and Gretel” to “Hänsel and Gretel”. Is this edit correct?

Assuming yes, would the change to “Hänsel and Grethel” (alternate spelling of Grethel) also be correct?

Thanks

As there is only 1 track to this recording, we must consider what is printed on the only release. And it shows:

HANSEL AND GRETEL.

Adding an accent where it is missing on a full uppercase printed title is very different IMO than adding a letter that is not printed at all.

I don’t know German but if Hänsel is correct, I think it’s good to add it.
Because the lack of accents on uppercase is a limitation since the typewriter era and has always been more difficult to type because of this constraint initial use.

I would also fix L’ARLESIENNE to L’Arlésienne on the same release (oh it’s already done in the MB release anyway).

Adding a missing accent is not going away (from the tracklist).

But adding an H wouldn’t be good as there is no such letter. This would be going away.
If Gretel was incorrect, OK add the H, but if it’s an alternate spelling or even the main spelling, then keep it as printed.
And it seems to be no mistake as I see it spelt “und Gretel”, 2 400 000, way much more often than “und Grethel”, 28 800.

What do you think? :slight_smile:

1 Like

“Hansel” seems to be the English spelling (cf. wikipedia), so I would say it’s either “Hänsel und Gretel” or “Hansel and Gretel” but not “Hänsel and Gretel”.

4 Likes

Yes, I guess that if you want to type any diacritics out of an English keyboard, you have to seriously really want it. :slight_smile:
English fits into ASCII, afterall.

Makes me wonder how MusicBrainz handles releases in Klingon. There must be some by now :slight_smile:

Klingon releases:

https://musicbrainz.org/search?query=lang%3Atlh&type=release&method=advanced

Klingon works:

https://musicbrainz.org/search?query=lang%3Atlh&type=work&method=advanced

Not many, but they are there :smiley: For most latin transliteration is used, but this one actually seems to use Klingon script at least for the title:

My fonts can’t display it, though.

2 Likes

As per @61C7hFxpxjQB I am not a fan of translating phrases that appear on English-language releases into whatever non-English-language source from which they derive. Obviously the same goes for other-language releases.
I can understand the conversion to the minuscule form when the release is all majuscule - but translating I would say is… verboten.

1 Like

@outsidecontext Haha, awesome! :slight_smile: I was just wondering because Klingon and other scripts that could possibly be used for releases are not (yet?) in the Unicode standard.

1 Like

@scotia: On the same track list where you remove the diacritic from “Hänsel”, you leave the accent on “La Bohème”. So your argument is at least not consistent … Accents and diacritics are compulsory in french, german, italian – and shouldn’t be left out just because some American or British graphicist was unable (or too lazy) to add them correctly. I wouldn’t argue were the titles sung (and thus spelled) in english, but they are all in the original language, with the exception of the overall Works

1 Like

I thought same at first.

L’Arlésienne, Toréador et Andalouse and La Bohème can be considered 100% French but Hansel and Gretel and Toreador’s Song can be considered English because they contain English grammar words, they borrow foreign words and write them as they want/can with their language culture.

It’s understandable.

1 Like

My argument is: where possible (case and unintentional misspellings notwithstanding) editors should leave well enough alone. Why fiddle? There is little more canonical than the supplied text; most else is conjecture. Simple, no?

1 Like

As said before (on your edits) I’m not contesting the change of the track list. But Recordings should follow the original release, not some cheap Reader’s Digest like compilations, even if the original is not yet in the DB. It now is: https://musicbrainz.org/release/784651fb-4ecf-42b8-a0cb-cbdfc4021920 :slight_smile:

2 Likes

we can also add all of the possibilities to the alias list. (I seem to be on an ‘alias kick’ as of late).

It’s one thing for a physical release. But it is completely different in the digital realm.
For example, AC/DC on computers is usually written AC-DC, AC DC, or AC_DC because the / really messes us up. Making DC a subdirectory of AC. Even music players will often read the tag AC/DC as two separate artists.
And a lot of foreign language stuff shows up as a series of squares on my screen. Or the simple act of adding an accent mark makes Motley Crew appear as M&%$#&&tley Cr*&^%&*w.
Plus, let’s be honest, some search engines do not recognize an accent mark to be the same as if without an accent mark. A name like Ortiz doesn’t show up if one searches for it using an accent mark, which then causes someone to create a 2nd entry for the same person.

Often, when I see something with all the squiggles, I will try to “whitewash” it to prevent ugly looking entries. And that even includes wikipedia entries, because they will sometimes show as ugly links if I copy and paste, but work fine if I hand type it.

So, my point is -
Depending on where one is digitally seeing a word could make the difference as to if “artist intent” was used or not.

*Digital causes more questions than it answers.

I agree with your logic there. Some corollaries arise though of whose resolution I’m unsure:

  • how does one know it’s the same recording (in this case specifically)?
  • assuming surety, should the earliest recording be the basis for naming?
  • if an earlier recording is found later with a different representation to the current, should the existing recording in the DB be renamed?

Questions, questions (some of which may make no sense, it’s late).

2 Likes
  • Good question
  • Yes
  • Yes

Hé hé :wink:

By the way we know that the recording length is computed from all tracks.
It could be the same for recording titles and even artists.

1 Like