Help / Forums / Adding & Updating Information
|
Index track before bonus tracks...???marcelrecords wrote:
I have had the same discussion with several users, who (on a new submission) insert an index track to denote that the rest of the tracks are bonus tracks, that were originally not included on the release. According to the RSG this is incorrect:
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
"Index Tracks should not be used for denoting the sides, track positions, or separate media of a release (the track numbers are used for this), or for adding incidental information (e.g. bonus tracks) which belongs in the Release Notes." (Bold by me). Some claim that it is much clearer with the index track to discern bonus from regular tracks. Should the RSG be followed here litterally, or is there room for flexibility? julesparis wrote:
when the tracklisting on the release itself is given as
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
1. ... 12. Bonus tracks: 13. 14. 15. i see no reason why an index track wouldn't be allowed in discogs - the bonus tracks being actually listed as a separate section on the release itself ... entry looks cleaner and closer to the release itself same with enhanced content - bottom line is, is it really listed as a separate / indexed section on the release itself? see http://www.discogs.com/release/1312651 for instance, artwork clearly identifies 2 sections, audio content / bonus enhanced content - why not try and transcribe that properly when discogs gives the tool to do it ... oparischka wrote:
example: http://www.discogs.com/image/R-531474-1128276535.jpeg shoulb be ok when it appears like that on the release the same with only one bonus isn't allowed atm. julesparis wrote:
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
oparischka wrote:
hmm, only for a group of tracks or a selection of tracks, not?
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
often index tracks are used incorrectly in classical genre many releases have index tracks for each tracks, subtitles or something better were a 2nd track-line for this .. but who cares marcelrecords wrote:
I do agree that it looks excellent, but the RSG explicitly mentions that bonus tracks should NOT go under an index. So, shall we ignore that, or what?
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
julesparis wrote:
 nikIt is important that the guidelines are seen as a little bit flexible (otherwise, they would be called rules). To a certain extent, they must be driven by peoples use of the database just as much as they drive the use of the database. marcelrecords wrote:
^^very nice!
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
A quote from Nik from 6 months ago:
''The guidelines are in fact fairly firm rules. We try to follow them closely exactly to avoid this type of situation. Everyone is expected to follow the guidelines.'' Eh?? marcelrecords wrote:
I guess you do...
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
I am all for flexibility, anyway..;=] Iron_Fist wrote:
Mr. Nik once agreed these instances were all right as Index Tracks.
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/to...16#1680265 Edit: AFAIR the post I refer to was in the moderators forum, which I fortunately don't have access anymore. Iron_Fist edited this message 3 months ago. fleshmeatdoll wrote:
marcelrecordsI do agree that it looks excellent, but the RSG explicitly mentions that bonus tracks should NOT go under an index. So, shall we ignore that, or what? that is wrong. it is talking about incidental information. the meaning being that footnotes should not wrongly being converted into index tracks that don't appear as such in the tracklist. RSGIndex Tracks should only be used only when the release itself divides the tracks into named sections in some way. Index Tracks should not be used for denoting the sides, track positions, or separate media of a release (the track numbers are used for this), or for adding incidental information (e.g. bonus tracks) which belongs in the Release Notes. this is only a conflicting guideline with regards to a single bonus track that is put in special section of the tracklist. as far as i am concerned i have lobbied to allow index tracks for whatever number of bonus tracks in order to make the tracklist reflect what is written on the release. marcelrecords wrote:
Thanks all, I will wait until the management shines its light on this.
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
nik wrote:
This is a transcript of a discussion held regarding this rule, between myself and
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
md, when Index Tracks were introduced:
nikI have this CD to hand, and it is marked out with those four tracks as 'Extra Tracks' - you can see it here http://www.discogs.com/image/R-91167-1158286936.jpeg . This looks valid to me, but maybe I am missing something? mdyes they are indicated as extra tracks, but that doesn't mean that the section of the CD covered by tracks 10-13 has it's own special title of "Extra Tracks". It just means that those are extra tracks. Not a reason for creating an Index Track imo. if at the bottom of the CD it said: * Recorded on John's farm in Dorset. should an Index track be created for that? It's information about the tracks, it's not a subtitle or even a subsection of the release. or if it said * Remixed by Mick Harris We would add remix credits, not create an index track. Likewise for the example linked to in your suggested guidelines - is it appropriate to just invent stuff and insert it into the tracklist rather than just describing what it is in release notes? nikI see you points md. I understand your 'Extra Track' objection, but I am wondering (since this is a very common things, esp on CD's) what we gain or loose by allowing or forbidding this usage? What is the best interests of the database in terms of ease of use and clarity? Is it easier or better to write 'Tracks 10-13 are Extra Tracks' in the notes? Perhaps it is (I am thinking out loud here). I don't think we are going to break the database one way or the other here, but md's argument seems reasonable to me, hence why the guidelines specifically state not to use index tracks for denoting bonus tracks. fleshmeatdoll wrote:
i was talking about actual sections in the tracklist, not about footnotes!
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
see here ie http://www.discogs.com/image/R-781341-1163730595.jpeg or here http://www.discogs.com/image/R-807617-1173919034.jpeg or even here http://www.discogs.com/image/R-1011327-1184112835.jpeg fleshmeatdoll edited this message 3 months ago. marcelrecords wrote:
Indeed. Can we arrive at the compromise that bonus tracks are allowed under an index if they clearly appear as a separate section in the tracklist on the release itself??
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Dec wrote:
marcelrecordsbonus tracks are allowed under an index if they clearly appear as a separate section in the tracklist on the release itself I'd be happy with that - if the Discogs entry is closer to the release artwork, that can only be a good thing. oparischka wrote:
looks nice, but correct?
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/release/1374072 i'd prefer a additional 2nd track-line instaed of Iron_Fist wrote:
nikI don't think we are going to break the database one way or the other here, but md's argument seems reasonable to me, hence why the guidelines specifically state not to use index tracks for denoting bonus tracks. Wow. You couldn't be more self-contradicting Nik. You agreed the opposite some months ago. Is this really the final verdict? Can you take a look at fleshmeatatdolls' examples and explain how md's "reasonable" arguments apply there? Just wondering, were not-so reasonable, vague and somehow unrelated arguments of an editor enough to create a rule against logical, clear and unbroken representation of a tracklisting? Iron_Fist edited this message 3 months ago. julesparis wrote:
nah - no need for drama, let's resolve this in a reasonable fashion: we can all agree that the RSG provision was based on a misunderstanding, as revealed by nik's post and the scan discussed in the original conversation with md:
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
1. when bonus tracks are identified with an asterisk, a mere (Bonus Track) mention appended to the track title, a footnote or such like => do not use an index track 2. when bonus tracks / bonus content is identified on the release itself as a separate section of the release content => an index track shall be used, just like it shall be used to identify separate sections of any releases when identified as such on the release itself julesparis edited this message 3 months ago. McVicar wrote:
[quote=marcelrecords][/quote]
posted 3 months ago. (
permalink |
report
)
I agree. What about videos? I thought about using an index track for Love & Beyond Part 2, but didn't after reading the guidelines. It has since been updated, and now makes a useful distinction imo. McVicar wrote:
marcelrecordsI do agree that it looks excellent, but the RSG explicitly mentions that bonus tracks should NOT go under an index. So, shall we ignore that, or what? BigTone wrote:
Ahhhh... "Flexibility". Ye Olde classic "Double edged sword". ADVANTAGE :- Gives good submitters the flexibility to make the best of entering a range of "non-standard" release characteristics with clarity. DISADVANTAGE :- Also gives anybody even greater chance to get things mixed up or plain wrong... (and some will, then defend themselves by saying "but the rules say..." or "but so-and-so did this yesterday...") |
