"Track 1", "Track 2", … as track names

MusicBrainz Style
1

Then, what do you think about this edit #56443228? The tracks are clearly listed as Track 1, Track 2, Track 3 and Track 4 on the back cover
.

1 Like
2

I agree with the edit.
They must have think it over before eventually calling those track only Track 1, etc. and printed them this way.
Let’s not rethink again over it, they chose how the tracks are listed.
Square brackets are for unlisted stuff, when we really have to make up an informative title.

2 Likes
3

Well, the guidelines seem to say otherwise, for tracks listed just as Bonus Track:

A hidden track, or a bonus track that appears as just “Bonus Track”, is not [untitled]; it is [unknown].

If it was just up to me, I would list it as Bonus Track if there were no other title given anywhere else.

4

Personally I think for track titles it doesn’t really matter if they are called Track 15/Bonus Track or [untitled]/[unknown], but for the recordings Track 15 or Bonus Track make no sense to me unless those are official titles and the same recording would also be printed as that on a release where it’s the first track.

2 Likes
5

Strange I cannot unlike this post.
I agree with the above, but not with the below. :sweat_smile:

1 Like
6

Here, you get a :heart: from me for half of your post. Now we’re even. :wink:

Then what would you name a recording that is linked to two releases and it’s called Track 1 on one and Track 2 on the other? Or bonus track on one and special bonus track on the other? Or on one release it’s not mentioned on the cover and on the other it’s called hidden bonus track?
Or what if it’s given an unofficial title on some compilation?

1 Like
7

I agree with Track 15 if it is like this on 100% of the tracks.
When there are discrepencies, then of course we can set whatever more clever title between square brackets.
And when there is an unofficial title on some lousy compilation is still better than a self chosen square bracket title. :slight_smile:
I just mean that square brackets are for things we Internet or MB make up.
Titles taken from actual releases should not get square brackets.

And recordings get their titles from the most linked track title, or original track title, choice is up to circumstances.

1 Like
8

Yeah that’s exactly what I mean.
If the album has 4 different releases where the recording is called Track 15 and then there is one EP release where it’s Track 6 that rule would mean the recording is called Track 15, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
As long as the recording doesn’t either have the same track name on a release where it doesn’t match the track number or there is a statement by the artist that Track 15 is the official title or the song has lyrics going “She was the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. I meat her at train track 15.” I think its save to assume that Track 15 is not a title.

9

This makes sense to me:

… and then there is one EP release where it’s Track 6 that rule would mean the recording is most often refered to as called Track 15 …

And anyway, we should not make guidelines for situations that may occur very scarcely if they ever occur at all.
All exceptions are up to the editor common sense and if not enough submitted to votes or even later edits and votes, etc.

As soon as it is juged more relevant to use an unofficial name (if it becomes famous in the cirlce of this music) or a made‐up name, OK to go, it’s just a matter of judgement and of knowledge of the what the recording is known as among fans.

1 Like
10

If that were a rule then we should rename all recordings to “that one song by that one band/artist”. :wink:

I didn’t mention those examples to imply that we need guidelines for those specific cases, but to indicate what little sense it makes to consider Track + Track Number a title. It’s a placeholder for a track without a title and for those we have a guideline.

PS: @moderators, I think from post 3 on this should be a separate topic.

11

I would name it after whichever 1) was used first, 2) is referred to most often (by the band, fans, etc.), 3) is being used most frequently as a track name. (Not necessarily in that order.)

Also, a track can be called “Track 1” while the recording can be “[unknown] (bonus track from Foo)”. I’m not totally clear on what extent what is being discussed here are track or recording titles.

1 Like
12

Then when would you name the recording [unknown] if the track is called Track 1?

13

If there is only one instance of the Recording, and it is referred to as “Track 1” on the associated Release and by the band and fans, then I would use “Track 1” for the Recording.

1 Like
14

Okay, you kind of turned my question around.
So then you’d name the recording [unknown] if it’s just used for one track called Track 1 and it’s not a popular song, so the fans don’t talk about it and the band is never asked about it in interviews so they never mention it?

15

I don’t know. / It depends (on nothing that I am able to quantify at this given moment). :slight_smile:

16

Isn’t this edit correct since the recording currently contains 2 tracks, both of which are called “Track 1” on their respective releases? See covers here and here (both from the Discogs links attached to these releases).

1 Like
17

Well that’s the whole question here.

2 Likes
18

Well then the edit is correct in my opinion.

2 Likes