Fixed. Thanks. I saw that yesterday, but didn’t go after it.
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.
Fixing capitals is an auto-edit (as long as you don’t change anything else at the same time)
The guideline you have found refers to separate track data, classic ETI. Not to sections like we have here.
I am trying to think of areas where I can find examples. Only ones coming to mind are ones I have added myself, or audio dramas. I’ll have a think…
I thought so too, but apparently not in the artist credits.
Maybe because it is an alias?
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.
I think “State Fair” needs to be gone from the track titles at any rate, even if the cast info remains.
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).
(Post must be 20 characters)
It’s kinda annoying that this release is actually the example used in 2 different casts on same release for the disambigation comment, but then doesn’t give an example of handle the track names. I think it should stay like it is. To me, it’s obvious that this release has history as it’s the example used for theatre releases with different year cast compilations. It borrows from the classical guidelines of sections of an overall work.
I agree, it’s annoying. I think the reason it was used is because it seems to be unique. I’ve been unable to find another release that includes soundtracks for the same musical by different casts. It doesn’t help that the 1945 soundtrack was never (as far as I can tell) released on its own, so it’s not even a “split,” really.
Quick Soundtrack question for Soundtrack people while you are looking.
That is currently a “Various Artists”. Is that correct? This CD has seven “soundtrack” tracks, but the other eleven track “Score” is from the two artists who are named on the front cover.
Should their prominent credit be appearing in the artist field in some form? Billy Corgan and Mike Garson? Please look at the cover art and let me know how you would do this one.
Most of my other Soundtracks are either one Composer, or a collection of songs. Making them easier to categorise.
Edit: A similar example, 12 Monkeys by Paul Buckmaster has Paul’s name on the front, so he gets full credit. Yet the CD includes other artists. But these are all part of his work.
This is why I think Stigmata should not mention “Various Artists” but be credited in full to Billy Corgan and Mike Garson
Strictly following the guideline, I"d have to say the release artist should be Billy Corgan and Mike Garson, as that’s on the cover. But I struggle with examples like this, too, wondering if the guideline is adequate.
Yeah, I know they are guidelines. They are “in most cases do this” but don’t cover everything. I think as this is little known disk no one really knew what to do with it and just saw lots of artists. Seems a little odd to shuffle a Soundtrack CD like that to separate Score from the singles. Billy and Mike are clearly the names on the cover.
I didn’t add these, just updated one of them from my copy. If I was to add it I’d have put in the Billy and Mike names as on the cover. May just edit it in a few days time and see if anyone comments.
(BTW - that image is really annoying. First time I had to use U-Block to suppress something in a forum post before it sent me mad )
I changed it to a still image.
It should be Billy Corgan & Mike Garson because that’s who is credited on the cover art. I’ve done a lot of Disney (yes, I know, lol) and this is very common, when they have pop artist contribute recordings, but the overall score artist is on the cover, it’s that artist that gets credited.
Edit #85476398 - MusicBrainz ← fix Release Artist. If vote goes through I’ll sort the rest out in the RG.