Are these actually different tracks/files/whatever on whichever medium you are referencing (CD I assume from your link)?
Then you can number them 8.1, 8.2, etc. I think track numbers do not have a specified format, and that’s why we can use vinyl numbers like A1, B3, and so on. For tracks on a real honest-to-god physical CD, this would be quite confusing for people playing them on standard CD players.
If these four pieces are parts of the same track on the CD (or whatever), then they should be delmited by a slash. I think something like Rhythmes Espagnoles: Nr. 2 Tientos / Nr. 4 Calesera / Nr. 6 Solea / Nr. 7 Paseo
is appropriate. You lose the information about individual timings, these could be put into an annotation of the recording.
You could even keep both options, the less appropriate one in a pseudo-release…
What do you mean, it sucks?
I really liked this feature myself, but it was only supported by early CD players and then, in lack of CD player supporting them, CD authors stopped using them as well, unfortunately.
CD player manufacturers probably thought it was making the button panel overly complex where they would have already enough 99 tracks and simple user experience.
Looks good!
Just wondering mmirG, have you ever tried adding a DiscID? For releases such as these, it can really help clear up any doubt about the ‘true’ track order that can arise for later users.
I’m thinking of inviting contributors to the Mechanical Music Digest to contribute - some of them have these and other related CDs. And they appear hungry for more info.
Well, maybe.
It allows for more than 99 parts in a CD, though.
And in the early times of CD, it seems there was mandatory 2 seconds of silence between tracks and not between indexes. But maybe I recall badly…
to contribute - some of them have these and other related CDs. And they appear hungry for more info.