Re: [mb-users] Should "vol." always be expanded? -- intent?

tommycrock wrote
> On 26 Aug 2014 19:52, "lixobix" <

> arjtaplin@

> > wrote:
>>
>> caller#6-2 wrote
>> > On 08/24/2014 12:25 PM, lixobix wrote:
>> >> And the release itself is generally the strongest evidence of artistic
>> >> intent anyway.
>> >
>> > That's not my understanding of "artist intent". I mean, yes, it's a
>> > source to consider if you're trying to prove artist intent, but I don't
>> > think it's sufficient. If it is, then we should just say "enter
>> > everything as on cover".
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > IMO, for something to be "artist intent", it needs to be in some way a
>> > meaningful difference to the artist.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> In relation to artistic intent, I see your point, but surely the release
>> itself is always a refutable presumption of artistic intent. Your
>> approach
>> that the titling choices must make a "meaningful difference to the
>> artist"
>> goes in the opposite direction: you presume that the choices are wrong
>> unless the artist has somehow confirmed that they are correct.
> 
> Regardless of whether we should standardise Part, Volume etc. or not,
> those
> are the style principles :
> "Usually you stick to the style guidelines.
> If you are still unsure how to enter something because it is labelled
> inconsistently on official sources, use the most common version.
> Finally there is the notion of Artist intent. If you can show that the
> artist intended something to be stylized a special way, then you should
> enter it like that into the database."
> 
>> According to
>> that approach, we at MB have the authority to correct "errors" that were
>> make by people actually involved with the release, simply because the
> artist
>> has not made it clear whether such "errors" were intentional or not. I
> don't
>> see why we take it upon ourselves to do this, nor the benefit.
> 
> It's standardising rather than correcting errors, but it's fair to ask
> what
> the costs and benefits are in each case.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list

> [email protected]

> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

I accept that these are established style principles. I'm just not so sure
why the notion of standardising the actual text on the release cover etc.
came to be. I can accept that in a proper series, it could be more
satisfying to have the ", volume" part the same for all, but not so much in
cases such as "Greatest Hits" "vol. 1" and "vol. 2". I'm particularly
against it when there is only one release, such as the one at hand here,
which nevertheless contains "vol." or "pt.". There's no real justification
for standardisation in that case, other than wanting one standard across the
entire database, which is not necessarily desirable to everyone. Moreover,
if a user wants such abbreviations expanded, I'm pretty sure that can be
achieved in Picard through scripting; but once the data is entered to MB in
a standardised form, the opposite can not be achieved for those who want it.
So in that respect certainly, there is an argument for "as on the cover"
data entry, which highlights one of the negative aspects of standardisation.

In the end, this is a fairly minor point, and I accept that the current
practices are well established. It just bugged me in relation to this
release, when the text on the cover looked different to the release.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Should-vol-always-be-expanded-tp4667627p4667742.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.