#musicbrainz

"more tracks than a single, but the entire possible space of the CD isn't used up"

i disagree

ill splain in a sec

an album is usually 10-14 tracks

sometimes a few less

a single is usually based on one song

1-3 tracks, sometimes a few more

sometimes a bonus "b side" track

an ep is neither of those

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EP suggests that it's always been pretty vague/arbitrary

5ish songs

Right... but we'e all seen more than our fair share of 6 or 7 track "singles", and 5 or 6 track "albums"

just because there is gray space doenst mean we should merge everything

why dont we merge EPs and singles in to albums?

its all music

the term "releases" kind of does that

"However, since a CD can carry any amount of material up to around 80 minutes, the distinction between a CD EP and a short CD LP is somewhat arbitrary and is based on artistic and marketing factors."

theres also gray space between promotion and bootleg and official...

I guess

just seems a term that really is somewhat meaningless when applied to CDs

then there is also the fact that the artists are still calling things EPs and singles

*and* the fact that CDs arent the only media we catalog *and* the fact that CDs arent the only media music is released on, even though it is now the most common

in my recent experience, singles generally have one or two tracks plus remixes thereof

SenRepus: I think the question is, does anyone really care whether a given release is a single or an album or an EP

single yes

EP no, at least me

does anyone care? yes, obviously

I remap %type% EP to Album locally

people wouldnt be arguing it

if they didnt

no, you make good points

just to me, a EP CD is a unuseful concept

thats understandable :p

theres things MB does that i find useless too

and things i find usefull they dont do

for instance, i keep the date in the track title of live songs

even ifits on a live bootleg with the date in teh title

hehehe... i know of an artist who releases EPs because the albums still takes several months to be released...

yeah... I just get annoyed with the single vs ep edit debates :P

deadchip is now known as HiFructose

okay, now who votes for all my edits? *gg*

MBs voting system is very prone to debates and edit flip-flops

a perma-vote system would be much better

--->high quality

i only vote no on edits

you dont want me to vote :p

BrianFreud: that helps a bit, but not too much -- it just raises the bar for changes

lol

no wonder you never vote on my edits SenRepus :P

id rather be stopping incorrect data... good data will go through on its own

agreed

I spend most of my voting time on newbie add edits

not all the voting, but the amount of time invested per vote

some are just godawful sloppy

it's hard if you don't add new releases every day... all those rules...

you get used to it

yeah

i tend to forget things if i don't do them often

spending some time really reading the wiki (not just a few pages, but digging in to it) helps

its especially easy if you were already a data nazi for your tags before

agreed

well, i don't have tags... i have CDs

though, that still left me with 10 gb out of 1 TB that's taking forever to fix/enter :P

the problems I have generally come up with disagreements with 1 or 2 people .... typically mo. :-/

lol

see, he and I tend to agree, or at least, be able to persuade the other

hawke_ >.< be nice

I only have one editor I normally argue pointlessly with :P

Senrepus: nah, it's not that he's wrong by any means; it's typically stuff like should that one marilyn manson track be called "spade" or ♠?

i keep finding typos in album notes

0 edits voted down & 0 edits failed for other reasons <--- proud of it ;)

opinion: The release I'm adding has 16 tracks. 5 are live. Album or Live?

I'm leaning album

probably album

i would take album also... live is for me completely live

lol, citizen, you only have 66 edits accepted either

it'll happen :P

as i said, i'm not that often here

I don't tend to lose any on a n:3 vote... tends to be 0:1 edits that just expire

and now 27 edits are waiting for votes... that's almost the half of my accepted edits... *g*

so much for using picard :(

http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6966606 - tracks 6 thru 9 ought not to have "(Unreleased)" in the titles

SenRepus: ?

i cant tag in utf because of my out of date os

lol

the program freezes when i set it up to use latin

what os?

windows ME

lol

i was tagging

ouch, yeah, no unicode support

though I wonder if, say, winamp could handle it, if you installed arialuni.ttf

>.< i had to tag 101 files

had to restart after tagging 100

so tagger didnt force me to submit TRMs

QT not working on ME?

BrianFreud i added a note because of the (Unreleased) in titles

is it actually on the titles though?

that discog didn't include it on those tracks

never put unreleased

its not part of the song name

i have the pdf with the artwork printed here, it has 'Unreleased' on the titles, in the same font and size as (extended club mix) for example

Well, one of his it's part of the version title

but the others, agreed

extended club mix is version info, something we need

"unreleased version" would be version info

if it is just a note stating that it was not previously released, which it often is, we dont want it

drsaude, you here?

and what about this 'unreleased original version' in the last title?

that one is fine

but it says also 'unreleased'

following your 'rule' it should be 'original version' only

that's a silly distinction IMO.

if the creator of the release calls it Foo Unreleased, then that's what it's called. In my book.

they arent calling it Foo Unreleased

when they wrote that song

do you really thing they named it "Foo Unreleased"?

it's a hidden bonus CD with some remixes and some new stuff... they want to show which songs are new and even one song is there two times, in original version and in a remix version

hawke: if it lists as "Tom Tom Drums (previously unreleased)" you really want that parenthetical info?

Citizen: exactly, the remixes have version info, the new songs have "unreleased" after them to show that, until now, they were unreleased

"unreleased original version" is all version info, it differentiates the track from what we would normally thing the original version is, sometime previously released

SenRepus: I don't feel it's appropriate to second-guess the person releasing it.

i do

sounds like a JapaneseArtistIntent type of debate... /me steps out :P

BrianFreud: I don't think there'll be any debate, just an "agree to disagree"

basicly :p

Citizen: if you call it just "original version" that makes it look like its the same as some other version, so it should include unreleased

hmmm, Paul Revere and the Raiders - wasn't someone in here a fan?

if you want a second opinion we do have the forums and mailing lists

hmm, so is picard-qt working properly with the renaming?

asking me?

anyone who knows.

also, is the %format% tag still supported?

hey, what would you guys name this release? http://recordbrother.typepad.com/photos/uncateg...

Santo Presents: Mexican Rock and Roll Rumble

possibly

brrr... have a look at a shop... i have such releases too, difficult to tell

what about the "and Psych-Out South of the Border"?

Citizen: that's a scan of the front of the vinyl :P

BrianFreud: could go either way on that. I have no objections to it

:)

Cool site, btw, for obscure old vinyl

i have only obscure new vinyl *g*