#musicbrainz

No it's not. It's a compilation that's marketed with movie names.

right. It's advertised/listed as "such and such for such and such movie"

*s/for/from

You won't find a movie that contains those tracks, so it's not a soundtrack. Not even "inspired by" soundtrack.

It's a compilation, plain and simple.

:P

no, it's a soundtrack compilation

unless you'd rather we set all soundtrack compilations to soundtrack... which I'd be happy with ;)

just luks and most others wouldn't be... :P

Eh?

the argument has been that, unless it's a single movie soundtrack, or a 2 or3 movie soundtrack where all 2 or 3 movies have no separate soundtrack,

it's a compilation, not a soundtrack.

So if it's "Star Wars", it's soundtrack. If it's "The Birds / Monkey's Paw", it's soundtrack. If it's "The top 10 movie themes of 1980", it's compilation.

Exactly.

but that's just because we can'

can't set two types to a single release. The last example still is a compilation of tracks from soundtracks.

and advertised/sold/liner listed as such.

And, more so, it's on those that it's more important, not less, to list which movie each track on the comp is from.

"Rachel's Song" is somewhat unhelpful in a comp listing... and we have no other field to store the info. "Blade Runner: Rachel's Song", on the other hand, useful++

So, to continue the previous discussion, it's ok to make the style more fitting for tagging, when it's just generally ok, and otherwise it makes more sense to enter correct data?

huh?

Generally external information is entered as ARs, annotations etc.

The movie title is definitely extra information.

Well, we don't list movies, so AR to a movie is rather difficult.

It's entered in annotations on numerous albums here.

Annotations are useless for anything, in this context, save direct eyeballs on the listing.

Suddenly I see someone entering hundreds of edits to change the style?

and, it's more true to the liner

so is "Bob Marley & The Wailers" / Catch A Fire

Which we so religiously follow?-)

"Rachel's Song (Blade Runner)" or "Rachel's Song from Blade Runner" or "Theme from Northern Exposure".

srotta: by your same argument though, we ought not to list opera/opus names in classical works either

When the song is from a particular TV series or movie, ok. But that's not the case for "Born to Be Wild", or "Smoke on the Water".

And yeah, I agree, it's problematic when there are several different kinds of tracks on the same album.

But it doesn't make those hundreds of edits ok.

If you have a compilation that specifically is designed to be a compilation of tracks from movies - what we would set to "soundtrack & compilation" if we could, then yes, it makes sense.

By my argument, you get the hair metal bands to kill the opera freaks ... "death by hairspray" ... then you don't have to list them at all. Can spend more time back stage with the groupies instead. Party on!

hehe

Has there been any discussion about those changes?

Anywhere?

back in his initial edits, yes

So that's pretty much "nowhere", since various artists edits go pretty much unnoticed unless you're a serial voter.

I picked up on him going through newbie add edits, then brought in the CSG hounds to help with his classical tracks on his VA ST comps

but many of those are pop songs, not classical

Yeah.

Of course, we might as well introduce CSG to the database as a whole.

well, it's CSG-extreme-lite

Or change everything to SoapOperaStyle, since that's where we're heading.

I'd disagree, but whatever... :P

No thought of going through style mailing list or anything before making huge amounts of controversial edits?

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Day of Our Lives. (me does SoapOpera)

srotta: Do you see *me* making hundreds of soundtrack edits?

it's a vague area in the guidelines - I've looked, trust me.

And, a great deal of the soundtrack compilations in the database already use that style.

No, but I do see you defending them, and I think you should know better.

Because I think they're correct.

And a great deal don't. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen any before those edits.

Well, what would you prefer?

Most soundtrack compilations include at least one classical track.

So either we get 1) CSG and non-CSG mixed track names

2) We ignore CSG for those classical tracks

or 3) We use Movie title: track name for the non-classical, and the listings look clean, make sense, and convery all the info for the track in it's reason for being on that compilation

BrianFreud would put all information about a track in the title field if he could

:)

otherwise, considering soundtrackstyle itself is still only a proposal, as is soundtracktitlestyle, and we have no soundtracktracktitlestyle, we have zero guideance for naming anything on these compilations.

Well, I quickly looked at a few of those albums (which, by the way, didn't have movie titles before those edits) and none of them had classical tracks.

we don't ever put data in a track field unless it's part of the track tilt

I came across some edits for classical tracks, but they were all on a single release that had only classical tracks that appear in moview.

so we apply one style to a soundtrack compilation if it happens to include any classical, but a different style if it doesn't?

Well, we apply one style to a release if it's classical, and a different one if it's classical.

huh?

Grhm, non-classical...

8)

lol

Although that first statement seems to be true as well :P

;p

well, let's step back a sec

would you agree, there's a basic distinction between general compilations and soundtrack (either songs from, songs inspired by, or songs written for) compilations, just as there's a distinction between general compilations and classical compilations?

No.

8)

So if I have "The Top 20 hits of 1980" and "The top 20 hits from the movies", they're the same?

Well, they'll probably contain different tracks... :P From the track-naming view, yes.

ok...

now, let's say I have "The top 20 movie hits of 1977" which includes "Also sprach Zarasthura" (sp?) and the 9th symphony among its tracks, and "The top 20 movie hits of 1978" which contains no classical.

if we name soundtrack comps based on the presence of a classical track or not, then one year will have one style, the other year a different style.

Well, as I said, I know there are problems. Making controversial edits without any discussion about it isn't the way to solve them.

well, until now, there's been no controversy... cooperaa, liff, myself, noone who's seen his edits has raised any flahs

*/flags

If you think it needs an official style, and needs to go to the style mailing list, though, we can do that.

I'd definitely suggest that.

i would think it's pretty much common sense that you don't apply "classical" styles to "popular" songs

main problem with soundtracks is, they're the mishmosh of the music world more than anythinng else - even remixes, dj mixes, general comps, what have you

basically, every single style can be mixed together on the same release.

So the style he's using, at least to me, makes the most sense - it allows for CSG, where needed, presents all the info in a similar enough fashion where CSG doesn't apply, and generally makes sense :)

I agree. That sort of should imply that there should be a documented way of handling them, instead of just going ahead and applying some randomly invented style.

Sure. I'll draft up a proposal for the style list this afternoon.

which reminds me, since I have to draft the other one too...

I've been looking for prior proposals, and haven't really seen any clean ones in the stylelist archives...

is there some format we're supposed to follow for RFCs?

I don't know. I guess not :P

the wiki just says how, not what

lol

hmn I don't know aboutthe style forthat release

I don't know

everyone's always saying "ok, I'll write up an RFC"... but noone ever seems to do one :P

I both agree to have the movies in, but also I agree to not havethme in

It's basically CSG where classical, MovieTitle: TracktitleInOriginalMovieScore/Soundtrack where not

if they're on the cover, i probably prefer them in. otherwise, not.

the rfc thing is: say you're doing it, but never do it and hope it magically fixes itself by way f implementation of more server code next year

'

i'd agree with arp on this

catgroove: that's exactly what I've found trying to actually *find* a RFC in the archives... :P

s/on//

warp!

hey warp, by the way, you forgot to vote on that one edit after you researched/fixed it :P

BrianFreud: i did? :S

ok, quick check.. then back to work. deadline today.

I set the language/script there too :p hehe

ok, well, does anyone know how formal a RFC has to be?

no idea

I still say thatthe forum wqoudlhave been better

noone listens to me

why the forum?

even when down the line it happenstance that i'm *right*

I was right about track annotations

?

showing in release view you mean?

no, when annotationswhere being added

I said' mifht need track annotations too'

they said 'nah, no need'

:P

:P

I mentioned adding urls/annotations as apart of the add-release routine way back in the day when the add routine was bor..erh fixed by keskte rewritten

I see em as useful... but the info so hidden and inaccessible, kinda unuseful as implimented atm

heh

it's like track ar's all over again

?

lol

tracka ars wheren't always visible from the albumview

so noone added them, because they where 'hidden'

ah

well people did add them, (atleast I did) but most people whined and complained about it :D

hmmm... seems to me I suggested a solution to this months ago, and noone liked the idea of adding them... http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=611