This release has the soundtracks for both of the “State Fair” movies, as you can see. In its current state, the track list looks like this:
I don’t like the look of having “State Fair (19xx cast):” prepended to every track. I’d like to change it, but I’m having trouble justifying it with the Style Guidelines, so I’d like to have some opinions.
Here’s how I would like to change it:
Main Title: Our State Fair (1945)
It Might as Well Be Spring (1945)
It Might as Well Be Spring (reprise) (1945)
That’s for Me (1945)
It’s a Grand Night for Singing (1945)
That’s for Me (reprise) (1945)
It’s a Grand Night for Singing (reprise) (1945)
Isn’t It Kinda Fun? (1945)
All I Owe Ioway (1945)
Isn’t It Kinda Fun? (reprise) (1945)
Finale (1945)
Main Title: Our State Fair (1962)
It Might as Well Be Spring (1962)
That’s for Me (1962)
More Than Just a Friend (1962)
Fair Dance (1962)
Isn’t It Kinda Fun? (1962)
Never Say No to a Man (1962)
Willing and Eager (1962)
Romance Medley (1962)
This Isn’t Heaven (1962)
The Little Things in Texas (1962)
Finale (1962)
It’s a Grand Night for Singing (vocal tracks only) (1962)
It’s a Grand Night for Singing (demo) (1962)
Isn’t It Kinda Fun? (rehearsal and performance vocal track only) (1962)
Take a look at the back cover art! What you want the track names to be is basically what the track names are on the back, so that can serve as some justification for getting rid of the prepending phrase in and of itself.
Here’s the gotcha though: If you want to play that card, then you also really shouldn’t have the year in parentheses after the title either (and of course, for those reading and skimming, not all the years are 1945, so there is actual informational entropy living there).
I dunno if there’s a good way to retain the year of the recordings themselves in “proper” metadata format, but you can always go through the Recording items and leave that info in the annotation (or disambiguation) so it isn’t just erased. If you could sleep easy at night knowing that the information is archived even if you can’t see it in the track title, then that’s what I may (tentatively) suggest doing.
That’s just my piece, though. I’d also seek the opinions of other editors in a case like this, too.
Yeah, the back cover is partly why I hesitate. The case could be made, borrowing a rule from the Classical Style guidelines, that the 1945 and 1962 “headings” are part of the overall work title, and therefore belong in the track titles. Kinda slim, but enough to make me doubt myself.
The disambiguations are already there on the recordings, and I agree they should be there. But I’d personally like to see the info in the track title — just not so prevalent.
It’s a pretty rare situation, I think, to have the soundtracks for two versions of a movie on one release.
There is a ticket somewhere about making sections easier to handle some how. What is currently in place is how MB currently does things. I’ve seen many examples like that.
Moving the date to the end looks odd to me. The current layout is clearer that this is two separate performances on the same album.
Sorry, no idea where or what to search for. I stay away from tickets. But I do know this conversation comes up a lot. It is quite common for a CD to have multiple sections. Especially CD being compiled from older, smaller media.
@IvanDobsky I was actually thinking of examples of releases where the track titles start with the name of the section, like the State Fair release does. None of the examples linked from the ticket @aerozol provided do that. They’re kinda making my case. None of them are precisely the same situation, though.
I’ll try and find something. It won’t be tonight, but there are plenty of these around. It is not unusual as it give clarity to the release. Especially when it is something like that one that is a compilation of two different things.
As someone who is not an expert on that musical, if all I saw was dates in brackets I would think it was the same performers in both cases. By using the sections it makes it very clear they are different entities.
I think I found the style guideline that applies to this. In the Titles guideline, it says this:
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.
It seems to me the Cast info qualifies as “extra title info.” Don’t know why I didn’t see that before.
I don’t think I agree. Isn’t the purpose of the “(19xx cast)” precisely to “…distinguish it from different releases or tracks with the same main title?” Many, of the songs are performed by both casts.
Until the ability to identify sections is implemented, like that ticket calls for, it seems to me that treating this as ETI is the best available solution.
We won’t agree on this as I think the current convention works well. You have picked a guideline that refers to something different. That is about ETI that is quoted after each track.
Here we have two separate releases put together onto one CD. the fact that “many of the songs are performed by both casts” is irrelevant. They are very different performances over a decade apart for a different show.
For someone like me who is not aware of the history, having the production name up front makes more sense that a year at the end in brackets.
The CD packages them as clearly separate sets. By using the pseudo section method it makes it much clearly than just sticking a year in brackets.
Why not just change this in Picard if you don’t like it?
I will come back with examples when I remember them. Currently it is Audio Dramas that are the only things coming to mind. When I think of a musical release I’ll be back.
For now I’ll walk away and let other people comment.
My personal preference would be:
State Fair 1945: Song Title
It’s true to the back cover, and I think it looks tidier/I can parse what’s going on better.
Not sure why ‘cast’ is in there, and the brackets, that should be in the recording disambig imo, since it’s not actually on the back cover (where it already is actually, great)
The titles/tags on my copy are already the way I like them. My motivation here is to determine the best practice in order to make the MB db as usable, and free of inconsistent entries, as possible (same as my question about putting cast credits in Join phrases). I think it is also beneficial in finding areas in the Guidelines that could use some clarification.
I appreciate your comments, and I’m considering them seriously. I’m just not convinced (yet).
None of them are precisely the same situation, though.
