Untitled classical releases

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f05093be7e0> #<Tag:0x00007f05093be650>


I’m not sure how to name some classical releases. The example I have in mind is this one : https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/db0100fb-e831-4c84-8130-d91a0f95ee12. It could be considered as a “list” of one composer, in which case the current title is correct, but I’m not really satisfied with this.
The other one is this one : https://musicbrainz.org/release/50f92597-aa4e-4ac0-b736-b5003f717f6d.
Sticking to the guideline (list of works by different composers), the title would be “Carulli: Serenade In D Major, Op. 109:6 / Hahn: Flöjtsvit I Folklig Stil / Präger: Introduktion, Thema Und Variationen In A Minor, Op. 21 / Werdin: Concertino Für Flöte Und Gitarre Mit Streichorchester / de Falla: Canción Del Pescador, Farruca / Desportes: Pastorale Joyeuse / Gossec: Tambourin”. It seems absurdly long to me, and not very meaningful, so I’m not sure.
The current title, which is probably wrong, is from the label’s site (http://www.bis.se//index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-CD-60), the CD reissue to be more precise.

Unknown title of release - use what I can?

For first example I would prefer using “Corinne Kloska: Szymanowski” as a release title. Even though there’s no guideline to support this I believe it’s better to have titles which help identifying the correct release and can be easily found. Too often I see similar releases added as duplicates.

Second release could have a long title with all works listed. It might look stupid but too much information is still better than too little. For this also shorter title would be enough for identifying the correct release. I believe these artists haven’t made more similar releases together. We could use use performer names as a title: “Gunilla von Bahr, Diego Blanco”. It maybe looks silly but would still be better than totally bogus titles. Some editors keep adding this kind of releases with their own titles (this could be “Flute and Guitar Music”) but we shouldn’t really do that.


I would probably also extend the guidelines for untitled/unknown titled tracks to releases:


I think we should try to avoid naming releases [untitled] or [unknown] at all cost. What info would such a title offer? It’s better to use anything printed on the release itself as a title. Bonus tracks are often not mentioned on a release, but no release is ever completely devoid of letters. :wink:


If there’s something printed on the release, you can argue that that is its title. Note that that guideline us not just [untitled] or [unknown] but also [Barfoo’s Third Operasymphony] - a title that is still indicated as not necessarily being the releases official/actual title.


This looks good to me, more meaningful than just “Szymanowski” in any case.

This is how Discogs named the release, and I think this is good because the cover makes it much more visible than the composers/works. But if a list of composers/works is preferred I’ll change it to that.

I agree that we shouldn’t use made-up titles, but in this case “Flute, Guitar and Strings” is used for the CD release on BIS website, even though it doesn’t appear on the CD cover. Maybe it should be kept as the release group title ?