this is a discussion that I’ve come across a couple times while editing, and wanted some input, and perhaps clarification on Style/Titles.
should release edition information be a part of the title, or just the disambiguation? I’ve found several releases—especially digital media—where the version information has been put in the disambiguation:
(note, the 1st & 3rd one even has it on the cover)
this doesn’t seem correct to me, based on how I read the section about ETI:
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.
the style guidelines don’t have any examples for release versions, just tracks, so I think adding some releases would be good at the very least…
an example of (perhaps) properly putting edition info in the disambiguation, since it doesn’t appear on the release:
Simple rule I was told - if it is written on the cover, it is in the title. If only part of a description at point of sale, it is in the disambig. If Digital Media are selling the album with it in the title, then it stays in that title.
Not sure about a sticker. Assume that would stay part of the title as it is part of the product in hand.
I disagree. Physical media do not have a disambiguation field. I think Deluxe edition is there to disambiguate that edition from the regular one. The title is the same as the regular one imho.
I handled that as IvanDobsky said. In most cases this is not part of the title, and not visible on the release. The artist or label might use such terms for marketing material, or sometimes it’s probably even just an unofficial wording by fans.
But there might be some cases where it is clearly part of the title on the cover.
Specifically for digital media releases: I don’t know where my interpretation originates from, but I’ve always considered it as “If it’s on the front cover, it’s part of title ETI and should go into the title field. If it’s in the release title on Apple Music/Spotify but not printed on the front cover art, it goes into the disambiguation field”.
As to whether I agree with that distinction… I’m not sure In my opinion it just adds unnecessary complexity and a point of contention.
Many old albums like Dark Side of the Moon have no title on the cover. So the digital art would show nothing.
With Digital Albums you are buying digital media that comes with tags already populated. As I understand it that is the best source. The “ALBUM” tag within those files is not something usually available with other media and seems to be a fairly definitive source?
I don’t buy stuff from iTunes, so can’t really comment. Bandcamp titles in the Tags seem to generally match the page I bought it from.
Agree there, but I spotted the sticker in one of the examples. Generally I treat a sticker as part of the cover I am reading, but would gather multiple stickers to a single release if they only difference is the sticker. For me the title would then be in the band’s language.
Exactly, that’s why I don’t agree with the argument of “the title should follow the front cover, not what’s on the streaming page”, because then those digital releases would have no title.
The way I see it, the title field should contain stuff that is written by the musician or the label, while the disambiguation field should be used to store stuff written by an MB editor who thinks the musician or label didn’t do a good enough job disambiguating in the title alone.
I think that additional information (such as removing “original motion picture soundtrack” regardless if it’s on the cover or not, and “deluxe edition”) shouldn’t go in the disambiguation, and that field should be for musicbrainz editor information, such as what ROpdebee said, to avoid accidentally choosing the wrong entity.
except, in my experience, a deluxe edition would normally have more tracks or an extra disc, and often different album artwork.
also, just for clarity, the 1st example doesn’t just have a sticker; it’s got completely different artwork than the standard edition.
edit: I believe if version info appears anywhere on the release (including the streaming page for digital media), it should be part of the title, not the disambiguation.
It gets messy - I have deluxe editions using the same Front Cover artwork on the CD and Digital Media as they are also anniversary editions. And only a sticker on the shrink wrap says they are different. But look closer and the deluxe is a hardback book. https://musicbrainz.org/release/f4f3437a-a5af-4ea0-9d22-fc09d8e9eba6/cover-art
In those cases I rely on the disambig to be able to tag my editions of those albums. I reinsert (deluxe edition) into my title. As I can do it in a tag tweak, I always just follow the guidelines.
It is also why I understood that Digital Albums already come with these extended titles in their tags. So that is why that tag is then used as the title in the database as what better source that the (iTunes or whatever) digital file itself? the file as sold should know what it is?
Right, I was putting different issues in the same phrase. But I have never seen a guideline that says “if not on the cover, then they go in the disambig”. The “original motion picture soundtrack” bit was not on the cover, but was present in the “title” field, so it should be included in our “title” field as well.
The “deluxe edition” should go in the title field if it’s on the cover or otherwise understood to be in the title of the release. Obviously if “pink vinyl” isn’t written anywhere it doesn’t have to go in the title, and that’s a proper use of the disambig. If “deluxe edition” wasn’t written aywhere it could go in the disambig, but not if it’s already in the title field. The titles for a CD and Digital Media version don’t have to match up exactly.
Anything that has Deluxe Edition on the cover in a title-like way (such as that first album in the original post) I’d leave in the title. Anything that is just marked as a deluxe edition with at most a sticker or the like, I’d just skip. For digital, it depends on how highly you think of the cover vs digital metadata (my general preference is to follow the cover for title and artist credit unless it seems wrong since I’ve seen so much crappy digital metadata).
All this talk of pink vinyl makes me feel seen, as I’ve likely used “pink vinyl” most recently in a disambiguation, but carrying on –
Dark Side of the Moon is an interesting example. I don’t have it in front of me (it’s in my Never Let This See Sunlight crate) but I expect it would have said Dark Side of the Moon on the spine. The spine of an LP or CD is how we would choose something off the shelf. If I were keying an old Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin record that didn’t have useful copy on the cover, I would have looked at the spine.
That helps us zero with digital files, alas. That 24/96 Dark Side of the Moon file just has a prism on the cover. And I have bought loads of titles from iTunes and Qobuz that had absolutely horrific tags. Entire albums with (remastered) or [iTunes exclusive] on every track title. So while the tags that came on the files ought to be canonical, the stores have shown me they’re not always worthy of this deference.
Unfortunately that’s just complaining and gets us no closer to guidance.
For what it’s worth, I’ve done quite a bit of editing on Japanese releases, which very often come in multiple editions - usually a normal edition, and a limited edition which might have an alternate cover, different b side or bonus tracks, or sometimes even a DVD disc with promotional videos.
The stores and labels usually include some distinguishing text which isn’t on the release, like “初回限定盤” (roughly “first press limited edition”) - e.g. standard, limited - which usually isn’t printed anywhere on the release itself (aside from possibly the Obi).
I’ve been generally putting this text into the disambiguation comment.
In my opinion it just adds unnecessary complexity and a point of contention.
