Track titles guideline change [Edited title]

[Updating the thread title to match where the discussion has gone.]

The new tracks feature is pretty great for identifying typos on track names.

I just made a at fixing some track typos that were identified this way and it occurred to me this might be considered a mass edit. However, in this case it's just fixing the titles as shown on the release.

I'm just considering that recently I was commenting on a forum thread discussing a mass edit with no forum consensus first, despite the edits generally being agreed upon. Many people were upset with this behavior, despite the edits being "obvious". What are other's thoughts on doing this with fixing typos on tracks?

In most of the cases there are images to confirm the fixed track title, in some other cases I'm asking first if there aren't clear images.

True, I've even spotted typos I made myself this way! It's actually quite astonishing how many mistakes there are and it's a lot of work to either post a message to all of them or correct them.

I started a few days ago with Tracks and went through the titles quite thoroughly - but after hours of work and I'm only in 'B', it's pretty obvious that posting hundreds of message in sub-notes (most of which probably won't result in fixes), it's probably not the way to go. On the other hand, if one migrates the titles with spelling mistakes with the correct title, the mistakes can no longer be spotted easily. But does that matter if the incorrect titles are included in the same Composition page?

Be aware that when you correct a track title you 'adopt' all responsibility for the correctness of all of the data of the sub. I've only edited titles of the releases I'm familiar with.

If you are fixing a number of submissions to match the release (i.e. fix typos in submitted data), I don't consider that as a mass edit in the same way that changing an ANV to an alias or invalidating a company are. You're probably fixing slightly different typos on different subs in any case.

And, in my opinion, fixing typos in submitted data to match the release is bullet-proof as far as 'obviously correct' is concerned.

Yes, if you find the typos via Tracks and then go through the individual releases, checking the images etc, I agree it's not a mass edit. Tracks is just a good way to spot the mistakes 'en masse'.

jopla2
True, I've even spotted typos I made myself this way! It's actually quite astonishing how many mistakes there are and it's a lot of work to either post a message to all of them or correct them.

I even noticed a typo on several releases of my favorite record. I own all versions and even I missed a glaring track typo. I'm starting to question everything now!

jopla2
Be aware that when you correct a track title you 'adopt' all responsibility for the correctness of all of the data of the sub. I've only edited titles of the releases I'm familiar with.

Yeah, this is a frustrating one. I'm always hesitant to edit subs like this that I don't own. I do comment very clearly that I'm only making the updates mentioned and that I don't own it. If I'm ever going to vote NmC or NMC on a sub, I will check to make sure the person who receives that vote 'deserves' it, so to speak. Which is a broken system since the purpose of a vote is on the entirety of a submission.

This is actually a case where I could vote NMC since it will go to the discogs bot. But really, it should go to the original submitter who added the tracks incorrectly like this. https://discogs.versitio.com/release/6847375-Select-Sounds-Vol2-Audio-Companion-To-The-Windham-Hill-Occasional/history#latest

andrenafulva
I don't consider that as a mass edit in the same way that changing an ANV to an alias or invalidating a company are.

Okay, thanks both of you for the comments. I won't worry to much about this then.

baldorr
in this case it's just fixing the titles as shown on the release.

https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/706833 ?

Clogwhistle
baldorrin this case it's just fixing the titles as shown on the release.
RSG §1.7.3 . May I refer you to the case of Nissing Words by The Selecter https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/706833 ?

Just to be clear, this is not quite the same as what you're mentioning. In this case, what's printed on the release is (for example) "Black Hole Sun", the song is "Black Hole Sun", but someone added the track spelled "Black Hole Son". That's just error here on Discogs, not indicating some sort of misprint or swapped audio or anything. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at?

baldorr
This is actually a case where I could vote NMC since it will go to the discogs bot. But really, it should go to the original submitter who added the tracks incorrectly like this. https://discogs.versitio.com/release/6847375-Select-Sounds-Vol2-Audio-Companion-To-The-Windham-Hill-Occasional/history#latest

You should definitely vote on that. Even if no one's score gets changed from it, the vote still marks the release with "Needs Changes" which would be correct. Previous s also got a notice from your message, depending on their message settings. If you want to make sure the OS gets the message, you should ping him here and/or in the sub-notes and send a PM. I'm not sure if pinging works in sub-notes.

jopla2
You should definitely vote on that. Even if no one's score gets changed from it, the vote still marks the release with "Needs Changes" which would be correct. Previous s also got a notice from your message, depending on their message settings. If you want to make sure the OS gets the message, you should ping him here and/or in the sub-notes and send a PM. I'm not sure if pinging works in sub-notes.

Good thoughts. I'll do that now. Sadly pinging in submission notes doesn't work. This is my number one wish-list item for Discogs (as well as notify of replies in submission history like we have in the forums).

baldorr
this is not quite the same as what you're mentioning.

That's fine, then. I interpreted your post in the wrong way.

jopla2
I started a few days ago with Tracks and went through the titles quite thoroughly

Can you explain you one can do that? I haven't really used tracks much yet, but it would be nice if there was a handy way to check my submissions/collection for typos. Thanks!

jopla2
It's actually quite astonishing how many mistakes there are and it's a lot of work to either post a message to all of them or correct them.

It really is incredible how many, especial when it is really obvious ones, I have left many comments and not fixing because

jopla2
Be aware that when you correct a track title you 'adopt' all responsibility for the correctness of all of the data of the sub.

and so many do not have images to confirm what is actually on release. And as is so often, this kinds of mistakes indicate there is more wrong with submission because OS did not take care.

Violent-Power
Can you explain you one can do that?

go to artist page, click on Tracks on the right, and you see all the tracks for this artist, can check there for the track and all possible variation and mistakes

4theLuvOvMusic
go to artist page, click on Tracks on the right, and you see all the tracks for this artist, can check there for the track and all possible variation and mistakes

Thanks!

Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

Thoughts?

Diognes_The_Fox
We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

+1

Diognes_The_Fox
We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

And we appreciate the opportunity dyslexia offers as a valuable contribution to our database. (just kiddin')

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

Thoughts?

I guess I’m out of the loop on how to officially handle this, but I like the idea of putting the exact spelling (or misspelling) in the official fields here. I’m sure are exceptions, particularly with companies. But enter exactly as it’s displayed on the release and mention in the submission notes that the title is misspelled.

To put it simply, I think the release page should reflect the actual release and if the release has typos then that’s what we enter here.

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

Thoughts?

Well, there was quite some dicussion in this thread linked above: https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/706833
But I agree that these misspellings should actualy be reflected in the data, not just in the images and notes. Might need a proper thread for discussion though.

Diognes_The_Fox
...

Thoughts?

TNV!

hafler3o
TNV!

That was my thought, too. Otherwise, how are you going to collate all the typos with the correct tracks in the 'tracks' feature?

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

+1

In Discography mode, releases are grouped in Master Releases
In Tracks mode, tracks are grouped in Compositions.
Similar functionality and similar display suggests similar guidelines.

hafler3o
TNV!

rather MT (Master Track)

The composition page can do this already. Here is my favorite example:

ZZ Top tracks page https://discogs.versitio.com/artist/113655-ZZ-Top/tracks

I have already migrated all the misspellings of the composition "A Fool For Your Stockings"

https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/c0d48728-0ca1-4132-8c53-b81895399365-A-Fool-For-Your-Stockings

Amongst the errata (that are actually on releases) are:

A Food For Your Stockings
A Food You Stocking
A Pool For Your Stockings
A Fool In Your Stocking

Apart from being a source of much amusement, it makes the data richer. Maybe someone collects misspelt ZZ Top releases? Maybe someone doesn't know it is a misspelling and searches for "A Food You Stocking"? Now the tracks are all linked up, so it is easy to discover. I'm sure in the future we can add more features to call the misspellings out somehow, but it seems very worthwhile keeping them, and a shame to bulldoze the data flat.

nik
The composition page can do this already.

Nice! That seems like a great addition.

nik
Apart from being a source of much amusement, it makes the data richer.

Agreed. If and when the Guidelines change I'll need to go back and edit Poultry Enclosure Of Love. After all, that does appear on the release, right? Then there's the famous Genesis song "Invisible Porch."

Seriously, we already preserve misspellings of artist names though ANVs, i.e.: Eric Crapton and I see no reason not to do the same with titles.

Fauni-Gena
I'll need to go back and edit Poultry Enclosure Of Love.

That's priceless. Thanks; I'd missed it first time around.

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

Thoughts?

Sorry, but could you not have discuss this before you roll out this new tracks feature? Now a lot of comments have been left and tracks names changed to correct names in tracks lists and incorrect names add to release notes since you roll out this feature.

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

Here's a problematic one. I left the "incorrect title" in the track list as it is quite hard to detect the right version now and I knew about your discussion.
New sub: Adolescent Sex
Track: https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/7ea57e78-f080-48ac-9d38-49a6c1618ad1-Unconventional-State-Line
Should be composition: https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/06aa8af3-807e-4fc7-8c37-113eb6a72f49-The-Unconventional

But we have the same wrong title here: https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/ae0dd455-5ba0-41e3-8da0-71bd20c045e6-Stateline

If we go as on release in track list here we'd have the same title but two different compositions.
How shall I proceed? Changing track list in both cases might be best.

4theLuvOvMusic
could you not have discuss this before you roll out this new tracks feature?

That is a fair point. I know it can be frustrating, but often the solution is only really apparent and pressing when it is in front of everyone. In of our working method, we follow the agile principles in development, and also try to do that company wide as well. The concept means we are better to try to move fast, get things in front of everyone, then deal with and ideas and problems, rather than try to get everything perfect upfront (and thereby take a lot longer to do things, and inevitably worry about things that are not a problem, and miss opportunities, ideas, and issues).

We can always improve on things as well, and want to try to keep the data input as efficient as possible. So we'll move fast on this change, as it seems there is general agreement.

typoman2
Here's a problematic one. I left the "incorrect title" in the track list as it is quite hard to detect the right version now and I knew about your discussion.
New sub: Adolescent Sex
Track: https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/7ea57e78-f080-48ac-9d38-49a6c1618ad1-Unconventional-State-Line
Should be composition: https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/06aa8af3-807e-4fc7-8c37-113eb6a72f49-The-Unconventional

But we have the same wrong title here: Don't Rain On My Parade – correct title in track list and therefore the right composition: https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/ae0dd455-5ba0-41e3-8da0-71bd20c045e6-Stateline

If we go as on release in track list here we'd have the same title but two different compositions.
How shall I proceed? Changing track list in both cases might be best.

IMO track title should be as-on-release. The Japan page at https://discogs.versitio.com/artist/23036-Japan/tracks can be used to roll all the track title variations into the 'correct' composition.

nik
IMO track title should be as-on-release.

Hmm unless I'm missing what all this is about this could be a fantastic tool for gathering all the differently titles on bootlegs under 1 umbrella.

nik
IMO track title should be as-on-release. The Japan page at https://discogs.versitio.com/artist/23036-Japan/tracks can be used to roll all the track title variations into the 'correct' composition.

I posted a note with the link in the sub history which will hopefully be respected by others.
Regarding "rolling" the two tracks to the correct composition I have to … I tried but either I don't get it or more likely my system is too old to be functional here (from 2011).

The_Beatles.
Hmm unless I'm missing what all this is about this could be a fantastic tool for gathering all the differently titles on bootlegs under 1 umbrella.

+1

This new feature has great advantages. It will be even better when we can bring cover versions together, with any original versions.

The_Beatles.
Hmm unless I'm missing what all this is about this could be a fantastic tool for gathering all the differently titles on bootlegs under 1 umbrella.

Yes, it does seem that it works in exactly the same way as ANVs, gathering all 'track name variations' under one 'primary track name'.

timhorton69
It will be even better when we can bring cover versions together, with any original versions.

From my quick look at it the other day, it already does that. The grouping is based on composer rather than performer, so it's possible to gather cover versions together with original performances.

nik
track title should be as-on-release

+1 from me too.

baldorr
tracks feature

Change title of thread maybe: Track titles guideline change?

TopCats45s
Change title of thread maybe: Track titles guideline change?

Good idea. Edited.

huh, I never knew that there were exceptions. I worked through Slipknot's tracks, and DAMN there are a LOT of wrong titles ("Vermillion" instead of "Vermilion", for example). Especially on the thousands of bootlegs.

But I kept them as on release, because I always thought that was the correct way. As in, we observe and document, we don't act.

nik
IMO track title should be as-on-release.

Typos I guess I can live with, but I'm opposed to as-on-release for track titles if it involves anything more drastic than minor title variations. Completely wrong track titles must still be made correct. We must still fix improperly identified remixes like Joe Shmoe Remix when it is actually the Jane Doe Remix ... or a completely misidentified track like it says Vogue but is actually Express Yourself ... or worse, when it's a song by an entirely different artist. We do this partly so that the Appearances section of the artist pages will show the actual recording, and partly for the benefit of API s (e.g. digital media taggers) and to justify what we do with the extra artists (fixing remix credits, for example), so as not to mess up the discographies of those extra artists.

It seems so much more elegant to just implement track title variations (and LNVs while you're in there).

This might be a good time to formalize a guideline for incorrect or omitted version titles, something like this, added to RSG §12.4.1:

Only correct version/remix titles which are entirely wrong and non-generic, such as when a remix title includes the wrong remixer's name. Version titles which could be interpreted as equally valid pseudonyms (Extended Mix, 12" Remix, Long Version, etc.) should be entered as-is, even if they are for different recordings; it is OK for the same recording to be identified by two different version titles, or for different recordings to share the same generic version title. If a version title is not printed on the release, don't add one. Use the release notes to explain.

Just a thought.

mjb
Completely wrong track titles must still be made correct. We must still fix improperly identified remixes like Joe Shmoe Remix when it is actually the Jane Doe Remix ... or a completely misidentified track like it says Vogue but is actually Express Yourself ... or worse, when it's a song by an entirely different artist.

Yes, I agree. See for example: John Lennon & Yoko Ono / Phil Collins - Double Fantasy / Face Value
We obviously don't want that to look like it has only Phil Collins audio.

So then it would be like this:
- Title with grammar mistakes => stays as on release
- Title with wrong addition (feat. etc.) => is corrected with an explanation in the notes
- Entire title wrong => is corrected with an explanation in the notes
- Correct title on a wrong artist's release => ?
- Wrong title on a correct artist's release => ?
- Wrong title on a wrong artist's release => ?

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

any news on this?

Above all, what we need is Track Name Variations (TNVs), functioning much like ANVs.

This would allow to document both the actual track name (including version name) and the way it is presented on the release., and to properly cross-reference releases containing the same track.

The benfit for the new "Tracks" functionality will be big, as it will be then possible to correctly perform a finer and correct sub-clustering of versions.

Imagine how useful TNVs would be useful for track listing of artists such as Frankie Goes To Hollywood, where the same mix of a track gets named in plenty of different ways from one release to another.

As I have posted on the "Tracks update!" thread, a good example of how to curate such data and how to render it to the viewer is the fan site DepMod.
On a single page, one can find 1/the entire list of compositions from Depeche Mode and related solo work; 2/below each composition the list of versions of each composition: http://www.depmod.com/songs/index.html
And when clicking on a composition, one can find on what releases each single version is contained; see e.g. "Personal Jesus": http://www.depmod.com/songs/personal_jesus.htm

Diognes_The_Fox
Talked this over with Nik. We feel there's value in preserving as-on-release spellings/misspellings.

This means that RSG §1.7.3 needs some revision.

Thoughts?

Will this rewrite the capitalization rule, especially for different than English languages?
It will be great if yes.

pigstyman
Will this rewrite the capitalization rule, especially for different than English languages?
It will be great if yes.

This is exactly the kind of benefits that TNVs (see my previous post) would give.

At the moment the guidelines regarding track titles are a mix of 'as on release' rules and 'convention' rules (capitalization, version name between parentheses, etc.).

If we would have Primary Track Names (PTNs) and TNVs, rules could be more polarized. 'As on release' rules would be applied to TNVs, and convention rules applied to PTNs.

mjb
Typos I guess I can live with, but I'm opposed to as-on-release for track titles if it involves anything more drastic than minor title variations. Completely wrong track titles must still be made correct. We must still fix improperly identified remixes like Joe Shmoe Remix when it is actually the Jane Doe Remix ... or a completely misidentified track like it says Vogue but is actually Express Yourself ... or worse, when it's a song by an entirely different artist.

I agree on the whole. I am not sure about "minor" title variations being the limit though. I think any title variation that can be linked back to the original title is ok - see my ZZ Top example above, and of course any translated title.

mjb
It seems so much more elegant to just implement track title variations (and LNVs while you're in there).

I sincerely doubt we'd do TNV's. This Tracks system can let people discover that information. TNV's would lead to a more complicated submission form, therefore more errors, for a function that would be of use to a small number of tracks.

LNV's are looing vanishingly likely of being done. I have never been convinced about it, and again putting in variations each time on releases adds complication. I'd also consider doing ANVs differently if I was to redo it. They should be a straight link to the page, and the pages should be linked together.

bertielego
Imagine how useful TNVs would be useful for track listing of artists such as Frankie Goes To Hollywood, where the same mix of a track gets named in plenty of different ways from one release to another.

That will be the use of a different layer in the Tracks system - Recordings - that lies between Compositions and individual Tracks.

I do not understand what is the advantage of adding incorrect tracks names to the tracks list instead of correct one with notes in release notes. When there is incorrect times printed on release, we add the correct ones to tracks list and make note of incorrect in release notes, when incorrect company names we add correct one to LCCN, write incorrect in release notes. Why is incorrect tracks names not the same as other incorrect infos on release?

What happens when the artist re-names a track?
And what about when the record company mis-name a song so it has the title of a different song?

F104G
What happens when the artist re-names a track?

This happens more than rarely; it is indeed a relevant issue.
And that is not the same than mistakes such as misspelling.

The same composition has sometimes different titles, e.g.:
- a demo version with a work in progress title versus the final title;
- a composition that gets renamed over time or for a special occasion/event.
- the same mix/version with various mix/version names.

That's why I thought TNVs would be necessary.

nik
I sincerely doubt we'd do TNV's. This Tracks system can let people discover that information. TNV's would lead to a more complicated submission form, therefore more errors, for a function that would be of use to a small number of tracks.

nik
bertielego
Imagine how useful TNVs would be useful for track listing of artists such as Frankie Goes To Hollywood, where the same mix of a track gets named in plenty of different ways from one release to another.

That will be the use of a different layer in the Tracks system - Recordings - that lies between Compositions and individual Tracks.

I think we all can be very happy about this future intermediary layer between "Compositions" and "Tracks". If I understand properly, it will give us the necessary information about how a certain composition has been 'performed' into various recording (whether an original version, a live version, a re-recorded version, a remix version, etc.), on what release(s) it has been made available, and how it is named on that very release – everything TNVs would provide as information, without bringing any complexity in the submission form.

4theLuvOvMusic
what is the advantage of adding incorrect tracks names to the tracks list

You'd need to define your definition of 'incorrect' before that can be answered properly. As it stands, no one is advocating for entering fully incorrect track titles.

For titles that have errata, misspellings, and other such variations, the advantage is we capture that rich data such that it can be used in interesting ways by people. Flattening the data and trying to make it all the same is much less compelling, especially when we now have a system whereby tracks are linked together and people can explore the variations with ease.

F104G
What happens when the artist re-names a track?

bertielego
This happens more than rarely; it is indeed a relevant issue.

It is still the same 'composition'. It should be entered as on release and linked to the correct 'root' composition. Anyone interested can click through and peruse the data to their own satisfaction.

bertielego
I think we all can be very happy about this future intermediary layer between "Compositions" and "Tracks". If I understand properly, it will give us the necessary information about how a certain composition has been 'performed' into various recording (whether an original version, a live version, a re-recorded version, a remix version, etc.), on what release(s) it has been made available, and how it is named on that very release – everything TNVs would provide as information, without bringing any complexity in the submission form.

That is the general idea, yes. And obviously on composition pages where multiple artists have done multiple recordings of the same composition (lets say 'Autumn Leaves') it is going to be of great help.

I just looked up that track on Wikipedia, check this out:

"Autumn Leaves" is a popular song. Originally it was a 1945 French song, "Les Feuilles mortes" (literally "The Dead Leaves"), with music by Hungarian-French composer Joseph Kosma - derived from a ballet piece of music (Rendez-vous, written for Roland Petit), itself partly borrowed from Poème d'octobre by Jules Massenet - and lyrics by French poet Jacques Prévert.

Much fun to come with all this stuff!

nik
You'd need to define your definition of 'incorrect' before that can be answered properly.

anything that is not the name, from incorrect spelling to different words

make up example correct title: "A Day In The Life"
incorrect: A Days In The Life
A Doy In Hte Life
A Night In The Life

nik
we capture that rich data such that it can be used in interesting ways by people

for example what? I do not understand what would be 'interesting' to use this for, this is a discography of work by artists, not list of incorrect tracks names you can find on artist releases, I do not see how this is adding to an artist discography anything.
If it is in release notes, it is capture there.

4theLuvOvMusic
anything that is not the name, from incorrect spelling to different words

make up example correct title: "A Day In The Life"
incorrect: A Days In The Life
A Doy In Hte Life
A Night In The Life

Ok, in which case I fully disagree with you. That is interesting data. We'd be loosing out by flattening it out into bland conformity.

And I think for 99% of releases I checked that is including the incorrect tracks names in tracks list there is no mention of correct track name in release notes.

nik
That is interesting data.

And this I do not understand, how it is interesting for an artist discography that some printers/layout people made mistakes adding tracks lists to artwork? What exactly does this add to an artist discography?

4theLuvOvMusic
for example what? I do not understand what would be 'interesting' to use this for, this is a discography of work by artists, not list of incorrect tracks names you can find on artist releases, I do not see how this is adding to an artist discography anything.
If it is in release notes, it is capture there.

I have an example further up the thread here.

What is interesting is it is the factual data as-on-release, and we enrich it by capturing it. It was the same thing for catalog numbers years ago, some wanted to conform all of them to a certain format, but that argument was not persuasive - we enter cat#s as on release.

4theLuvOvMusic
I think for 99% of releases I checked that is including the incorrect tracks names in tracks list there is no mention of correct track name in release notes.

A) The submitter doesn't know there is a variation in the track title
B) The submitter entered it incorrectly
C) It is not a fully surfaced issue till now, because of the Tracks project

I always try and check against any images when I come across this. Most of the time, it is submitter error, but the times it is not, it should be kept.

4theLuvOvMusic
make up example correct title: "A Day In The Life"
incorrect: A Days In The Life
A Doy In Hte Life
A Night In The Life

If it's printed that way on the release, it's not for us to decide if it's intentional or not. Clearly in your made up examples some of those are just typos ("Hte" for example). But at the risk of having duplicate entries in the database, I think it's important to log that typo directly in the track list, with a note explaining it.

4theLuvOvMusic
And I think for 99% of releases I checked that is including the incorrect tracks names in tracks list there is no mention of correct track name in release notes.

It's possible some people don't know something is wrong. Unless it's a well known record/song, and there are many other versions in the database to compare to, it's not surprising this is missed.

Of course, if there is a misprint where two song titles are swapped, then I agree with the sentiment above that we should add the recorded tracks as they exist in reality, and explain why the track list is different from what's printed in the notes. But that's a case where it's a completely wrong title, not a minor typo.

nik
It should be entered as on release and linked to the correct 'root' composition.

How do I do that?

4theLuvOvMusic
And this I do not understand, how it is interesting for an artist discography that some printers/layout people made mistakes adding tracks lists to artwork?

I find it pretty cool. Look beyond your own opinion.

MJG196
I find it pretty cool. Look beyond your own opinion.

Has nothing to do with my own opinion, has to do with what use is this for any artist discography. "I find it pretty cool" is really not useful, neither is your dig at me.

"Interesting" and "pretty cool" is what lists are for. Discography is facts, facts is the correct song titles, "interesting" is foot notes (release notes) and lists for

4theLuvOvMusic
Discography is facts, facts is the correct song titles

I respect your opinion here, but I disagree with it. I am all for 'facts', and to me, it is factual to reflect what is on the release when it increases data richness and usability. The Tracks feature gives us the ability to link tracks together, so people can discover all the interesting variations. If they are not reflected in the list, then the data is invisible unless one checks each release in turn. This is one use case Tracks was designed specifically to solve. I want to know that on The Best Blues & Ballads there is the hilarious errata of "A Food You Stocking". I do not want to have to peruse the notes field on 207 releases that track appears on to find that out.

I would agree that entirely incorrect track names / track lists should be changed to reflect what is on the release.

i am just about to update this
https://discogs.versitio.com/The-Crazy-World-Of-Arthur-Brown-The-Crazy-World-Of-Arthur-Brown/release/1344529
i think the notes are the correct way to add this discrepancy as the correct title is on labels
but due to the suggested changes regarding the tracks feature maybe a note in the guideline regarding these situations could be added ?

nik
I want to know that on The Best Blues & Ballads there is the hilarious errata of "A Food You Stocking"

FWIW, the back cover says A Food Your Stocking. Apparently the submitter made a mistake.

With that case in point, I am not persuaded that TNVs would result in more errors being introduced. ANVs have not had that problem. Behind the scenes it could be a convenient hint to the system for what composition to link the track to. It could also be a way (but hopefully not the only way) to define an alternate title for compositions, so we don't have to choose strictly from the track titles (alleviating the conundrum when no track title is generic enough).

Oh well, I am pissing into the wind, as usual.

SeRKeT
i think the notes are the correct way to add this discrepancy as the correct title is on labels

For now, RSG §1.7.5 requires it, yes. You rightly raise question of how and why RSG §1.7.5 should be followed, given that RSG §1.7.4 is going to be gutted.

If our concern for correctness of titles is diminished to only fixing the extremely wrong ones, then it seems to follow that the submitters need not try to find "the most complete and correct" version of conflicting titles on releases that have more than one tracklist. What should s do instead, nik? Prefer the tracklist on the cover?

mjb
If our concern for correctness of titles is diminished to only fixing the extremely wrong ones, then it seems to follow that the submitters need not try to find "the most complete and correct" version of conflicting titles on releases that have more than one tracklist

yep, example 1 :

Sleeve :Sitting On The Dock Of The Day
Inner Sleeve : Shitting On The Dock Of The Bay
Labels :Spitting On The Dock Of The Day

in the theoretical (but not impossible) situation above, all titles are incorrect
so i guess in those situations it would be best to use the "correct" title
and add the discrepancies to notes?
but still this is something that should be covered in the Guideline

Example 2 :
Sleeve :Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay
Inner Sleeve : Shitting On The Dock Of The Bay
Labels :Spitting On The Dock Of The Day

now there are 2 incorrect titles and 1 correct title
would two incorrect titles trump 1 correct title?, furthermore
if that is to be the case which incorrect title should be chosen?

so there we have it, and while i agree and like the idea of using track titles as per release
listed above are some situations that need to be addressed before that really is a workable practice :)

the theoretical examples i gave are because i see title variations/mispellings frequently on jazz releases
(mainly newer ones and reissues/comps) and also regularly on Jamaican releases.
This happens on other releases too i would imagine lots on non-english releases as well but
i don't own very many so cannot confirm how bad they are :)

SeRKeT
the theoretical examples i gave are because i see title variations/mispellings frequently on jazz releases
(mainly newer ones and reissues/comps) and also regularly on Jamaican releases.

I think it's a requirement on classical and soundtrack releases. Never the same name twice.

mjb
I think it's a requirement on classical and soundtrack releases. Never the same name twice.

worse than i thought then :D

nik
For titles that have errata, misspellings, and other such variations, the advantage is we capture that rich data such that it can be used in interesting ways by people. Flattening the data and trying to make it all the same is much less compelling, especially when we now have a system whereby tracks are linked together and people can explore the variations with ease.

nik
. I am all for 'facts', and to me, it is factual to reflect what is on the release when it increases data richness and usability. The Tracks feature gives us the ability to link tracks together, so people can discover all the interesting variations.

I fully agree.

Apart from that: track titles might have various valid variations. I see no reason to invalidate and "correct" variations on track titles. Titles are language, and language can be used differently to have the same meaning. Furthermore, intentional variations, jokes, parodies, ... might be introduced.
And even if errors are not intentional, I see no reason why some title that was born without a specific intention should be streamlined. (Some parents made kids without the intention to do so, we do not annihilate them either, that's the nature of mankind. Intentions do happen to turn out differently)

nik
I would agree that entirely incorrect track names / track lists should be changed to reflect what is on the release.

Here I agree too. An clear error is not a variation and should be fixed.

mjb
If our concern for correctness of titles is diminished to only fixing the extremely wrong ones, then it seems to follow that the submitters need not try to find "the most complete and correct" version of conflicting titles on releases that have more than one tracklist. What should s do instead, nik? Prefer the tracklist on the cover?

I think it is impossible to make a "rule" on what version should be preferred. Only a case-by-case judgement can tell us. Every submitter should just make a choice at the best of his/her capabilities when submitting/editing such cases.

SeRKeT
Sleeve :Sitting On The Dock Of The Day
Inner Sleeve : Shitting On The Dock Of The Bay
Labels :Spitting On The Dock Of The Day

:) I would not perceive this fictional example of title variations as an error, but rather an intention.
As a song (sung poetry) title, sitting on the dock of a day is not incorrect, neither is shitting on the dock of a bay, or spitting on the dock of a day.
Sitting on the dock of a bay would be the most boring title ever, as it lacks humor and/or poetry. (imnsho)

If however one title must be chosen for the tracklist, it must be judged in how far the
-artist(s) would be able to make such joke variations?
-is it a parody of an existing song (originally written by the performing artist or not)?
-what text is actually sung (if it's not instrumental)? (Or do all variations appear in the songtext?)

I think it is up to the owner & submitter/editor to make the best judgement. Conflicts between contributors can be battled in the forums. Any way: one of the printed titles should be entered in the tracklist.

https://discogs.versitio.com/The-Crazy-World-Of-Arthur-Brown-The-Crazy-World-Of-Arthur-Brown/release/1344529

it says: credit error on the back cover; Side 2, track 4 is titled "Money" instead of "I've Got Money".
I think that is stated incorrectly. Money instead of I've got money is clearly a variation (shorter version, vs. longer version of a title), it's not an error.
-> because both are present on the release, both can be entered in the tracklist.
(However, I'm in favor of choosing -> either all tracks are entered as on sleeve, or either all of them are entered as on the labels (which is no problem in this example)

--
Any case of typos by a contributor can(/should) of course be fixed, obviously.

I just came across a great example for why we should not 'correct' title variations.

https://discogs.versitio.com/composition/a4147cb9-5046-4f07-801e-67da9af81297-Peanut-Vendor

There are four ways this title is written, in two languages:

El Manicero
El Manisero
Peanut Vendor
Peanut Vender

I looked into it more when I was migrating all the compositions into one, checking spellings on the release etc. I then started to research more about the correct spellings.

It turns out that in _both_ these language variations, the spelling variations are acceptable, albeit less usual for "vender":

https://fundeu.es/noticia/manisero-o-manicero-3429/
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/28201/vendor-vs-vender-in-standard-american-english

I find researching this kind of thing fascinating, and I'm sure it enriches our experience, as well as challenges our inbuilt notions that there can only be one 'right' way. Looking forward to being able to add such detail to composition pages via notes.

mjb
If our concern for correctness of titles is diminished to only fixing the extremely wrong ones, then it seems to follow that the submitters need not try to find "the most complete and correct" version of conflicting titles on releases that have more than one tracklist. What should s do instead, nik? Prefer the tracklist on the cover?

That is a good question. I'm not sure I have a definitive answer apart from going for the more 'correct' one, and always mentioning it in the release notes.

mjb
I am not persuaded that TNVs would result in more errors being introduced. ANVs have not had that problem. Behind the scenes it could be a convenient hint to the system for what composition to link the track to. It could also be a way (but hopefully not the only way) to define an alternate title for compositions, so we don't have to choose strictly from the track titles (alleviating the conundrum when no track title is generic enough).

Oh well, I am pissing into the wind, as usual.

You are not pissing into the wind mjb. I guess I just don't see the need to greatly add to the complexity of the submission form to capture this information, when ultimately it is all pushed up to the Composition page, and can be dealt with in much more detail there. See my above example where 4 wrongs make a right :-)

Fauni-Gena
Agreed. If and when the Guidelines change I'll need to go back and edit Poultry Enclosure Of Love. After all, that does appear on the release, right? Then there's the famous Genesis song "Invisible Porch."

The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Are You Experienced? my personal favorite, besides Crapton.

nik
El Manicero
El Manisero
Peanut Vendor
Peanut Vender

I looked into it more when I was migrating all the compositions into one, checking spellings on the release etc. I then started to research more about the correct spellings.

That's an interesting point. It certainly can apply to translations of track titles. In the original language, however, it's a little more complex, as a written song will have been written – and usually ed with a publisher – with a particular spelling; so that spelling can, and probably should, be considered 'correct' for that song, even if there are valid variant spellings of some of the words in the title.

With traditional/folk songs, of course, there won't be a written original and so variants can be considered equally valid.

nik
LNV's are looing vanishingly likely of being done. I have never been convinced about it, and again putting in variations each time on releases adds complication. I'd also consider doing ANVs differently if I was to redo it. They should be a straight link to the page, and the pages should be linked together.

Can't see the problem with it really. If the feature is added on the edit page, that's all it would have to be. Wouldn't demand categorising the label pages would it, really...

In addition to the above, I already see that forum threads are often initiated to propose label merges. two recent such examples

[Label Merge] Luna Studios / (Luna Music Studio)

So what would be the harm in adding an LNV field

...when this sort of activity is already taking place

Some of the 'enrichment' I found in the database:

on old age:
Found A Care (Ultra Naté - Found A Cure)
Withering Heights (Kate Bush)
Walking The Witch (Kate Bush - Waking The Witch)
It's Over (Chaka Khan - It's Not Over)

on obesity:
Tom's Dinner (Suzanne Vega)
Ton's Dinner (Suzanne Vega)
Agnetha Fatskog [not a Track title obviously]

natural sciences (& the unexplained):
Don't Let It Snow On Your Face (Adeva)
Too Far A Part (Mica Paris - Too Far Apart)
Helio Earth (Kate Bush - Hello Earth)
On England My Linearity (Kate Bush)
String Affair (Donna Summer)
Not Stuff (Donna Summer)

cultural sciences:
Slie Dover Backwards (Donna Summer)
Persona Sensacional = Hot Stuff
Ritmo Caliente = Hot Stuff

+
Knever New (Oleta Adams)
Friendly Pleasure (Jhelisa)
Money For The Bees (Alison Moyet - Honey For The Bees)
Rick and Roll (Alison Moyet - Rock And Roll)
What Are You Going To Do For Me? (Chaka Khan - What Cha' Gonna Do For Me)

(Some are typos by Discogs s, some actually appear on the releases.)

jopla2
Withering Heights (Kate Bush)

Awww, that is just a typo Various - Essential Hits 114. I'm disappointed.

Whutering Heights can stay though - Various - Golden Discoteque

nik
Awww, that is just a typo Various - Essential Hits 114. I'm disappointed.

It should be under 'natural sciences' anyway ;-)

The Best Of Jamiroquai:

Too Young To Die - Fade Out
Virtual Insnaity
Scum
Scan
Little T
Little "I"
Little
Main Vain
Roadio
(Don't) Give Hat A Chance
Drifting Alone
Cosmic Gril
Canned Head

Morning everyone.

How's this for a potential GL update:

RSG §1.7.3. Track titles and release titles must be entered as they appear on the release (please note specific instructions at the release title and track title guidelines). If the titles are displayed inconsistently in multiple locations, use the one that is most correct and document the others in the release notes. If this cannot be determined, please create a thread in the database help forums.

If the track is completely misidentified, the track title should be changed to it's correct title. Reasonable proof must be provided for the error correction to be accepted (for example, that you hold the release, and have checked the audio content). We require that the mislabeled track is 100% verifiable as an unaltered copy of the original track in order to allow a name correction. Any title error that is corrected should be mentioned in the release notes.

That looks good, with one minor correction: please remove the apostrophe from "it's correct title". Actually, I'd rather rephrase that:

If the track is completely misidentified, the track's correct title should be entered.

Diognes_The_Fox
How's this for a potential GL update:

I like this. This all seems like the right way to approach this.

Diognes_The_Fox
How's this

looks fine to me

Good point, andrenafulva!

Diognes_The_Fox
RSG §1.7.3. Track titles and release titles must be entered as they appear on the release (please note specific instructions at the release title and track title guidelines). If the titles are displayed inconsistently in multiple locations, use the one that is most correct and document the others in the release notes. If this cannot be determined, please create a thread in the database help forums.

If the track is completely misidentified, the track's correct title should be entered. Reasonable proof must be provided for the error correction to be accepted (for example, that you hold the release, and have checked the audio content). We require that the mislabeled track is 100% verifiable as an unaltered copy of the original track in order to allow a name correction. Any title error that is corrected should be mentioned in the release notes.

One last bump!

Diognes_The_Fox
RSG §1.7.3. [...]
One last bump!

Ok to me. Looks ready for copying this into the guideline.

I really wish the guidelines would include basic examples understandable by s with even a basic grasp of the English language, especially in this case here that seems very easy to illustrate with concrete configurations.

Diognes_The_Fox
Track titles and release titles must be entered as they appear on the release (please note specific instructions at the release title and track title guidelines).

eg. a recording of Hey Jude is listed on a release (artwork, labels) as Hey Judy => do not correct, enter Hey Judy in track list

Diognes_The_Fox
If the titles are displayed inconsistently in multiple locations, use the one that is most correct and document the others in the release notes.

eg. a recording of Hey Jude is listed on a release as Hey Jude on the cover, as Hey Judy on labels => enter Hey Jude in the track list, mention the error (Track Ax incorrectly listed as Hey Judy on label, correct title listed on back cover) in the release notes section.

Diognes_The_Fox
If the track is completely misidentified, the track's correct title should be entered. Reasonable proof must be provided for the error correction to be accepted (for example, that you hold the release, and have checked the audio content). We require that the mislabeled track is 100% verifiable as an unaltered copy of the original track in order to allow a name correction. Any title error that is corrected should be mentioned in the release notes.

eg. a recording of Hey Jude is incorrectly called Yesterday on a release => enter Hey Jude in the track list, mention the error (Track Ax incorrectly listed as Yesterday on release) in the release notes section.

Diognes_The_Fox
One last bump!

I wonder if there should not be some encouragement to mention the correct track title in the notes? Or am I missing something?

_jules
I really wish the guidelines would include basic examples understandable by s with even a basic grasp of the English language, especially in this case here that seems very easy to illustrate with concrete configurations.

I agree +1.

Examples should also include a case where a version name is incorrectly given on a release. Eg:

_jules
Diognes_The_Fox
Track titles and release titles must be entered as they appear on the release (please note specific instructions at the release title and track title guidelines).

eg. a recording of Hey Jude is listed on a release (artwork, labels) as Hey Judy => do not correct, enter Hey Judy in track list

eg. a recording of Frankie Goes To Hollywood "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Tage Der Menschheit Mix)" is listed on the release "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Der Menschheit Mix)" => do not correct, enter "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Der Menschheit Mix)" in track list.

_jules
Diognes_The_Fox
If the titles are displayed inconsistently in multiple locations, use the one that is most correct and document the others in the release notes.

eg. a recording of Hey Jude is listed on a release as Hey Jude on the cover, as Hey Judy on labels => enter Hey Jude in the track list, mention the error (Track Ax incorrectly listed as Hey Judy on label, correct title listed on back cover) in the release notes section.

eg. a recording of Frankie Goes To Hollywood "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Tage Der Menschheit Mix)" is incorrectly listed on a release as "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Der Menschheit Mix)" on the cover, and incorrectly as "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Tage Der Men Shite Mix)" on labels => enter "Watching The Wildlife (Die Letzten Tage Der Men Shite Mix)" in the track list, mention both errors in the release notes section.

_jules
Diognes_The_Fox
If the track is completely misidentified, the track's correct title should be entered. Reasonable proof must be provided for the error correction to be accepted (for example, that you hold the release, and have checked the audio content). We require that the mislabeled track is 100% verifiable as an unaltered copy of the original track in order to allow a name correction. Any title error that is corrected should be mentioned in the release notes.

eg. a recording of Hey Jude is incorrectly called Yesterday on a release => enter Hey Jude in the track list, mention the error (Track Ax incorrectly listed as Yesterday on release) in the release notes section.

eg. a recording of Frankie Goes To Hollywood "Welcome To The Pleasuredome (Real Altered)" is wrongly identified as "Welcome To The Pleasuredome (Pleasure Fix)" on a release => enter "Welcome To The Pleasuredome (Real Altered)" in the track list, mention the error (Track Ax incorrectly listed as "Welcome To The Pleasuredome (Pleasure Fix)" on release) in the release notes section.

Diognes_The_Fox
If the track is completely misidentified, the track title should be changed to it's correct title.

I can't get my head around this. Example: a group uses a recording of a piece of classical music as the intro to their live show. On the release it says "Track 1: Introduction" - has it been "misidentified"? Do we actually enter it as "The Firebird Suite" etc? or is it correctly called "Introduction" because that's what the group calls it?

Or how about when Hawkwind re-named the song "Assault And Battery" as "Lives Of Great Men" when it was released on the Palace Springs album?

Diognes_The_Fox
If the track is completely misidentified, the track title should be changed to it's correct title.

F104G
I can't get my head around this. Example: a group uses a recording of a piece of classical music as the intro to their live show. On the release it says "Track 1: Introduction" - has it been "misidentified"? Do we actually enter it as "The Firebird Suite" etc? or is it correctly called "Introduction" because that's what the group calls it?

Or how about when Hawkwind re-named the song "Assault And Battery" as "Lives Of Great Men" when it was released on the Palace Springs album?

DtF is talking about tracks misidentified by the label/company, or whoever came up with the track list and listed a completely erroneous track title there. So if a Beatles compilation includes "Yesterday" but artwork claims it's "Let It Be", we submit "Yesterday" in Tracklist and add a note that "Let It Be" is erroneously listed on the release. But let's say artwork lists "Yesterday (All My Troubles Seem So Far Away)", we would enter that in Tracklist as it's still the correct song.

jopla2
DtF is talking about tracks misidentified by the label/company, or whoever came up with the track list and listed a completely erroneous track title there. So if a Beatles compilation includes "Yesterday" but artwork claims it's "Let It Be", we submit "Yesterday" in Tracklist and add a note that "Let It Be" is erroneously listed on the release. But let's say artwork lists "Yesterday (All My Troubles Seem So Far Away)", we would enter that in Tracklist as it's still the correct song.

Exactly this.

Diognes_The_Fox
Exactly this.

yep , that's the part of the rule that stays the same here, keep things as per audio
when it comes to erroneous tracklists, it makes sense too!

but, here's an example of that that may fall between both parts of the guideline
https://discogs.versitio.com/Various-Untitled/release/1909163
note that although all tracks are in the wrong order some titles are similar to the correct ones
so my question is here, do i use the titles given on the release and add them to the correct tracks
as they are similar or does this fall in the "misidentified" category and is fine as it is??

Diognes_The_Fox
Exactly this.

So what about my second example then? How do we know who decided that track was called "Lives Of Great Men"?

nik
That is a fair point. I know it can be frustrating, but often the solution is only really apparent and pressing when it is in front of everyone. In of our working method, we follow the agile principles in development, and also try to do that company wide as well. The concept means we are better to try to move fast, get things in front of everyone, then deal with and ideas and problems, rather than try to get everything perfect upfront (and thereby take a lot longer to do things, and inevitably worry about things that are not a problem, and miss opportunities, ideas, and issues).

We can always improve on things as well, and want to try to keep the data input as efficient as possible. So we'll move fast on this change, as it seems there is general agreement

Dear Nik,

Lovely to see you coming here and interacting on the forums; even nicer to hear little tidbits of what the broad ethos and thinking is at Discogs HQ.

Perhaps one day you could give us a rundown of status/likely outcomes for a bunch of the issues which get a frequent airing here?

Things like the "no more than 50 owners..." "pings in the sub history" etc spring to mind where the community would really appreciate a proper update.

Thanks!

Duplicate :(

I feel like we should err on the side of caution. In the classical example above, unless it’s an obvious error, leave it as printed. Same with some of the other examples listed. If a song name has somehow changed over the course of a band’s history or some other unusual case, add it as printed and make a release note explaining the info you have.

In the end, anything entered that doesn’t exactly match as it’s printed should have a corresponding release note explaining the discrepancy. That will catch any oddities and exceptions to the rule.

https://discogs.versitio.com/submissions?mode=saved#mode=saved&item=%2Frelease%2F1753810-Damage-Justice-Vol-I%2Fhistory
Track 1 title has been changed - opinions please?

https://discogs.versitio.com/submissions?mode=saved#mode=saved&item=%2Frelease%2F1753810-Damage-Justice-Vol-I%2Fhistory
Track 1 title has been changed - opinions please?

Track 3 should be entered as "For Whom The Bell Tolds". That's how it's printed. A release note calling out the typo would be helpful too.

As for Track 1, I have no idea. I don't know much about Metallica - is the actual song called "The Ecstasy Of Gold"? If that's the actual song, then a release note should be added. If not, then that's just simply a bad edit by the previous person.

F104G
Or how about when Hawkwind re-named the song "Assault And Battery" as "Lives Of Great Men" when it was released on the Palace Springs album?

Has been answered already:

nik
It is still the same 'composition'. It should be entered as on release and linked to the correct 'root' composition.

The decision is quite obviously intentional and not a mistake. As a result, the same 'song' goes by two different titles and they are combined on the same Composition page.

SeRKeT
here's an example of that that may fall between both parts of the guideline
https://discogs.versitio.com/Various-Untitled/release/1909163
note that although all tracks are in the wrong order some titles are similar to the correct ones
so my question is here, do i use the titles given on the release and add them to the correct tracks
as they are similar or does this fall in the "misidentified" category and is fine as it is??

In my opinion the logical thing in this case would be to use the titles that appear on the release and not substitute them with the correct ones. So that when A2 is in reality the track "Action Speaks Louder Than Words" by 'Chocolate Milk (2)', the release claims the track is "Mr Big Stuff" (that track actually appears as A3). The labels do list all tracks but the order is incorrect and most titles are 'altered' in some way. I would use these altered titles in Tracklist, meaning "Action Speaks Louder" for A2.

jopla2
The decision is quite obviously intentional and not a mistake.

How do you know this?

jopla2
I would use these altered titles in Tracklist, meaning "Action Speaks Louder" for A2.

i was thinking the same, :)
the new tracks feature got me thinking about that sub
but also making the point that some more rigid guidelines are needed here
with some examples maybe like the above that are a little tricky that have "misidentified" tracks
and alternate spellings too

jopla2
The decision is quite obviously intentional and not a mistake.

F104G
How do you know this?

I'm assuming the releases are official and that Hawkwind doesn't have two completely unrelated tracks/songs by the titles "Assault And Battery" and "Lives Of Great Men". If that's not true, that's not a very good example. ;-)

I don't think we need to know more than that, meaning the exact reason why the title was changed. The band and/or label made that decision and that's that. IMO the opposite would have to be shown to be true, that it is a mistake/error.