Subtracks? (Classical) (edit: Track indexes)

classical
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe3d3cc1758>

#1

Here is the extract of (unentered) tracklist from rear album art:

5 Piezas Espanolas: 1. Aragonesa 2:53
6 2. Cubana 3:37
7 Pavane Für Orchester Op.50. Bearb. Für Klavier 4:18
8.1 Rhythmes Espagnoles Nr. 2 Tientos 1:22
8.2 Rhythmes Espagnoles Nr. 4 Calesera 1:41
8.3 Rhythmes Espagnoles Nr. 6 Solea 1:08
8.4 Rhythmes Espagnoles Nr. 7 Paseo 1:54
9 Poursuite “Souvenirs Of Youth” 1:09

How do I enter tracks 8.1 thru 8.4 ?
(I want to call these subtracks but Documnetation doesn’t contain that term. What is the correct term?)

from
Discogs Condon Collection release

thanks


Single digital file made of five "tracks"
#2

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…


#3

If those are physically set in the CD, they are called track indexes. :slight_smile:


#4

These are actually in the Red Book? What were they thinking??


#5

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.


#6

The two releases with track indexes came out OK.



#7

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.


#8

I would happily add DiscIDs if I had the discs.

I’m thinking of inviting contributors to the Mechanical Music Digest :hammer: to contribute - some of them have these and other related CDs. And they appear hungry for more info.


#9

Not really, but in hindsight it looks like a silly feature to add, especially as an optional one.

It reminds me of the possibility to fragment IP packets. Nobody uses this except for exploits.


#10

Well, maybe. :slight_smile:
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…