Tracks not listed on the official tracklist

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f0508034c38> #<Tag:0x00007f0508034aa8> #<Tag:0x00007f0508034918>


@outsidecontext, can you clarify which title(s) you’re referring to?

The confusion here is that there are two separate titles, track and recording, and it’s not made clear which policy goes for which title.


It should be the same name for both track list and recording most of the time.

There can be the occasional situation where credits change from release to release.
The first release has “Jack Ü with Justin Bieber” as the artists.
When Bieber released his album this was then credited as “Justin Bieber feat. Diplo & Skrillex” .
The collaboration Jack Ü contains Diplo & Skrillex so they are equivalent.


As @dns_server said, see also info on multiple titles in


One of the issues for me is that this guideline seems to run against artist intent.

Keeping in mind that a track is different from a recording, we can see how the artist chose to title his track there on the release. If he intended the track to only have one song named, shouldn’t the title of the track preserve his choice there?

And so I’d expect to name the recording to indicate multiple songs, but I’d name the track exactly as the artist named it on the back of the CD.


Yes if it’s named we use that name for the track. I thought we spoke about hidden secret unnamed tracks.


I’m going to italicize my attempt at using MusicBrainz technical terms below:

We’re talking about hidden secret audio on named tracks on a particular medium

(At least, I think I have that terminology right)

Basically, when you read the back of the CD you see that track 10 is named “Song A” but when you listen to track 10 you hear Song A followed by silence followed by Song B.

I would argue that the artist has titled the track “Song A” and he intended that to be the title for the track on the medium that is the CD.

I see from the graphic below that there’s only one recording allowed per track, which is why I think the recording should include both names through the track should appear as the artist named it on the medium

But maybe we’re just being too pedantic here :slight_smile:


Guidelines say to name hidden tracks once we find out the name, don’t they?


Well, this is not really a hidden track, at least in the sense that “track” is normally used in MusicBrainz.

The track is clearly listed and titled on the back cover as “11. Yellow Light”. According to the general “as printed” rule, we should thus title track 11 as “Yellow Light”.

However, this track actually contains recordings of two different works: Yellow Light and Sinking Man. So the question is whether we should deviate from “as printed” and include extra information not present on the cover art in the track title.


We do have a way to have both noted, by the way: link both works to the recording.


Yeah, exactly. This usage of the term track is an exception, slightly different from the usage of the term elsewhere in the system.

Of course it’s fine to have such exceptions, but I think the documentation needs to mention the exception more clearly and more often, even if it’s repeating itself. The page for split title guidelines and artist intent should give nods to the exception, acknowledging that yes, in this case the artist’s title for a track is overridden as “track” applies to each song in the track.

Personally, I think it would make more sense to be consistent with the term track and recognize artist intent by using some other mechanism to acknowledge the second song on the track. The recording relationship @derobert mentioned might be plenty, and it’s what I’ve done for albums I’ve entered before.

But then, it’s not up to me :slight_smile:


I’m not sure where in the style guidelines it says to add a title that isn’t printed in the track list — AFAIK, we follow the printed track list unless a style guideline says otherwise. The guidelines tell you how to handle a track with multiple songs (separate with a slash), but that’s (as shown in the example) where the printed track listing shows all the songs.

And even if there were a guideline, the artist intent principle would seem to override (presumably, the artist wished to surprise you with an unexpected song). Unless someone wants to argue it’s a printing error.

disclaimer: I principally edit classical, where this insanity is not permitted; the only insanity permitted in classical CD publishing is the belief that you can somehow put food on the table by selling classical CDs… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Ha, well this is getting deep into weeds of textual analysis, but @jesus2099 has the clearest reference in his link to hidden tracks above: “A hidden track can mean: […] one or more songs that follow another song on the same track, usually after a longer period of silence, but are not listed on the sleeve.”

I also see hints from other pages such as titles which mentions: “a track includes two or more songs” as an occasion for the title to be split. It doesn’t flat out say this should override the artist’s title, but I thin it suggests it.

@jesus2099’s reference shows to me that this is an exceptional use of terms. It refers to a track inside a track, which I don’t think is an intuitive way of doing it.

Again, if it’s open to discussion I personally would say that’s a hidden song, not a hidden track, and follow artist intent for the track name. Either way, there is room for more clarity in the documentation.


ooh! fun! language lawyering! :smiley:

The titles page was the one I mentioned—and note the example there has cover art specifying all the songs going in to that title with slashes. So the example doesn’t override artist intent. Not to mention the style guidelines explicitly tell you that artist intent overrides the style guidelines, so finding implied exceptions is probably wrong.

Now, personally, I see a much stronger argument for normalizing the recording title. If for no other reason than having an complete description of it makes it easier to maintain the database. (No, don’t ask me to find any support for that in the style guidelines either…)

Not sure what to make of the glossary, with its disclaimer up top that it’s in serious need of cleanup.


I would also ‘correct’ the recording, but not the track title on the release.


Exactly, hidden track and secret track are frequent terms outside of MB.
It is what I meant and also the guideline I linked.
Same MB track: Named piece, silence, uncredited piece. :wink:
This uncredited piece is the hidden/secret track (not CD nor MB track, just inaccurate common language).