Hi, I know the usual policy is to reproduce typos in tracklists, but I'm introducing a Various Artists compilation release where a track title has a typo in the back cover of the jewel case (the track name is written like "I Do Not Want I Haven't Got") but it's written correctly in the tracklist on the CD surface ("I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got"). Which one should I use in MB?
DjSlash
If it's correct on the media, I'd use that
Krystof joined the channel
antlarr
DjSlash: thanks
anonn joined the channel
reosarevok
antlarr: actually we do error correction if we're sure it's an error
antlarr
reosarevok: really? I'd swear I've seen some cases of typos being kept on purpose
and I even thought it was the policy (fix them in the recording name/keep them in tracklists)
thanks for the link, it's good to know (althought artist intention is sometimes hard/impossible to know)
reosarevok
If you think it might be intentional to shorten a title, then you should keep it
Same for "typos" like writing "ke pasa" or whatever
But if it seems like an accident, we generally fix it
Once alternative tracklists are in, then we can maybe have an alternate "as written with all errors" one
SothoTalKer has quit
CatQuest joined the channel
CatQuest has quit
CatQuest joined the channel
CatQuest is now known as ApeKattQuest
SothoTalKer joined the channel
derwin
01:41 < reosarevok> Once alternative tracklists are in, then we can maybe have an alternate "as written with all errors" one
Erin has quit
Erin joined the channel
srxl has quit
srxl joined the channel
atticf has quit
ripdog has quit
ripdog joined the channel
atticf joined the channel
antlarr
reosarevok: oh, I didn't know there's work on doing "alternative tracklists" will those replace pseudoreleases for tracklist translations?
reosarevok
That's the hope
antlarr
cool (and thanks for a much wanted feature to whoever is working on this :) )
MeatPupp3t has quit
MeatPupp3t joined the channel
Lotheric_ has quit
Lotheric joined the channel
mll_ joined the channel
mll has quit
Nixkernal has quit
Nixkernal joined the channel
ripdog has quit
ripdog joined the channel
relaxoMob has quit
relaxoMob joined the channel
atj has quit
atj joined the channel
Maxr1998 has quit
Maxr1998 joined the channel
ArtGravity joined the channel
texke joined the channel
scrumplex has quit
scrumplex joined the channel
lusciouslover joined the channel
relaxoMob has quit
relaxoMob joined the channel
krabador joined the channel
ApeKattQuest joined the channel
ApeKattQuest has quit
ApeKattQuest joined the channel
lusciouslover has quit
relaxoMob has quit
G0d has quit
relaxoMob joined the channel
KassOtsimine_ is now known as KassOtsimine
trolley has quit
trolley joined the channel
ApeKattQuest joined the channel
ApeKattQuest has quit
ApeKattQuest joined the channel
aerozol
derwin: I’m working on getting the old user survey data together - interestingly there’s an about equal number of ‘too much standardisation’ and ’not enough standardisation’ comments (I haven’t counted though). Both parties seem invested, based on their language :P
derwin
In my background in databases and data storage, my strong and transparent bias is towards data that is useful. While I acknowledge that raw data might be useful to someone, somewhere (someone researching how often people at the record company made typos that made it through the art process?), I can see far more usability benefits from lightly scrubbed ("standardized") data