We Are Number One All Individual Tracks

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

http://www.discogs.com/Various-Trance-Europe-Express-Volume-4/release/1427319

one 1 - Deadstock Octarine
one 2 - Fluke Synth Bit
one 3 - Bytesize Nuns Codpiece (Trouser Torpedo Mix)
two 1 - Vulva Haunted House
two 2 - Rue East Viper
two 3 - Solcyc Ky9
three 1 - LFO Helen
three 2 - Coldcut Nominal Aphasia
three 3 - DJ Crystl Crystlized
four 1 - Rootless Return To Savannah
four 2 - Chemical Brothers, The Life Is Sweet (Delik 1)

It doesn't seem correct to me, as I've seen releases labeled eg, Silver Side and Black Side, but these would use Index Tracks, yes?

And if these sides were labeled as Side 1 and Side 2, then the tracknumbering would be:

1 1 - TrackName
1 2 - TrackName
1 3 - TrackName
...
2 1 - TrackName
2 2 - TrackName

...do we drop the 'Side' altogether and selectively choose the side number, or side number as a word?

I've seen, and done. some great creative numbering in the past, but this just doesn't look like it's been done correctly. Maybe it's me, and I have OCD. :D

RSG "More creative track positions such as "Up, Down" (for example) are acceptable if under fifteen characters long, and were listed like that on the release" http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html

Scoz over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

index tracks shouldn't be used for differentiating between sides of records.

as far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with the way teex 4 has been done.

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post schtel edited over 13 years ago

Scoz
index tracks shouldn't be used for differentiating between sides of records.

Unless the sides are labeled as such to denote a section of tracks. See here as an example: http://www.discogs.com/Depth-Charge-Depth-Charge-Vs-Silver-Fox/release/28949

Foxy Side
A1 Depth Charge Vs Silver Fox
A2 Silver Dub

Fluffy Side
B Under The Eye Of The Electric Storm

Scoz
as far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with the way teex 4 has been done.

What, to use the names of the sides in the track numbering scheme? So you are saying, do not use side names for Index Tracks but include them in the numbering scheme? If this is the case then why have:

one 1 - Deadstock Octarine

...and drop part of this side name altogether. Surely it should be:

side one 1 - Deadstock Octarine

Or more realistically, if the sides are labeled as One and Two, or derivatives thereof, just use the normal track numbering scheme of A, B, as this does not fall into the description of being "More creative track positions.." And also do not use Side Names as part of the track numbering scheme as these are not the track numbers.

I think there was a couple of threads on this quite a few months ago. I will have a search for them later, but I think one conclusion was to not use things like One and Two for creative positions and Index Tracks.

*edit, typo

nik over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

It does look weird, I haven't seen this used before, anyone got any other examples of this?

A1, A2, B2 etc is obviously the standard for Discogs, and it is much more concise and just looks right. I am all for being flexible and not bugging submitters about silly stuff, but perhaps we need to say something regarding sides listed like this?

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

I guess when we see A1 this is, in fact, a combination of the side name with the track number for that side. So A1 is not just the track number. I've never really looked at it like that.

I would suggest that the following not to be used as 'creative track positioning'

1, 2
one, two
side one, side two

...and perhaps that side names should not be included in track positions apart form the use of letters such as A, B or X, Y etc

nik, would you say this is wrong:

Foxy Side
A1 Depth Charge Vs Silver Fox
A2 Silver Dub

Fluffy Side
B Under The Eye Of The Electric Storm

...as the side names are being used for Index Tracks? What if it only had Foxy and Silver on each side and not the word 'side'? I think we have had this debate before, sorry if I'm asking the same question. I guess if it had Foxy and Fluffy with A and B also printed separately then this would clearly be denoting a group of tracks, which just so happen to be all the tracks on that particular side.

I think much better to see it as above, rather than:

Foxy Side 1 - Depth Charge Vs Silver Fox
Foxy Side 2 - Silver Dub
Fluffy Side 1 - Under The Eye Of The Electric Storm

PITA for credits also. :)

rassel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

What do you propose for releases with side identifier like:
- This side / Other side

This Side 1 - The Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (12" Mix)
This Side 2 - The Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (Dub)
Other Side 1 - Sliced Killer Tomatoes (Deep'n Freez Mix)
Other Side 2 - Sliced Killer Tomatoes (Balsamico Mix)

or

TS 1 - The Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (12" Mix)
....

Usually If I am unsure which side is the "first" side, I check the matrix# and take the side with the lower number as A side. So usually I list them simply as

A1 - The Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (12" Mix)
....

But I'm not sure about my logic here.

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

rassel
What do you propose for releases with side identifier like:
- This side / Other side

I would add that to the list, and is not creative:

1, 2
One, Two
Side One, Side Two
This, That
This, Other

A lot of R&S vinyl has Silver Side, Black Side, and I would understand the objection for the use of Index Tracks. Maybe Index Tracks or numbering for 'creative track positioning' shouldn't be applied to labels that are consistent in their side names, as they are not being creative outside of their norm?

nik over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

schtel
nik, would you say this is wrong:

Foxy Side
A1 Depth Charge Vs Silver Fox
A2 Silver Dub

Fluffy Side
B Under The Eye Of The Electric Storm

...as the side names are being used for Index Tracks? What if it only had Foxy and Silver on each side and not the word 'side'? I think we have had this debate before, sorry if I'm asking the same question. I guess if it had Foxy and Fluffy with A and B also printed separately then this would clearly be denoting a group of tracks, which just so happen to be all the tracks on that particular side.

I think much better to see it as above, rather than:

Foxy Side 1 - Depth Charge Vs Silver Fox
Foxy Side 2 - Silver Dub
Fluffy Side 1 - Under The Eye Of The Electric Storm

PITA for credits also. :)

The guideline was reworded to allow Index Tracks for this type of thing, please see http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Insert_Index_Track and http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/169036#2206611

I totally agree the first example is preferable.

rassel
Usually If I am unsure which side is the "first" side, I check the matrix# and take the side with the lower number as A side. So usually I list them simply as

A1 - The Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (12" Mix)
....

But I'm not sure about my logic here.

Your logic is right, that's what I would do as well... the matrix# will usually tell us what is side A and side B.

rassel
What do you propose for releases with side identifier like:
- This side / Other side

schtel
I would add that to the list, and is not creative:

1, 2
One, Two
Side One, Side Two
This, That
This, Other

I think that we shouldn't be too restrictive... surely listing something as:

This Side
A1
A2

That Side
B1
B2

is nice and clear? What would be the objection to having it listed as that?

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

nik
The guideline was reworded to allow Index Tracks for this type of thing, please see http://www.discogs.com/help/su...l#Insert_Index_Track and http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...topic/169036#2206611

Ah, ok, it was updated after that discussion, I can see that now, thanks.

RSG
4.1 Index Tracks should only be used only when the release divides itself into named sections in some way. They can be used to enter special titles given to release sides or different media, if so done on the release.
4.2 Index tracks should not be used for denoting generic side, track position, or separate media data (for example, 'Side A', 'CD1' etc), track numbering is used for this.

nik
is nice and clear? What would be the objection to having it listed as that?

ok, yeah I wouldn't object to that. I see also that 4.2 refers to not using for generic sides. I think my initial concern with my original example is it seems to be using the side names as part of the track positioning, so not only shouldn't it be using 'side one' and 'side two' for Index Tracks, this same rule should apply to the track positions.

I'm just trying to have a bit of a definition for when it is appropriate to to use creative track positioning rather than Index Tracks, and/or vice versa. eg, sides labeled X, Y can be used for track positioning and not Index Tracks. You think? And...

1, 2
One, Two
Side One, Side Two

...should not be used for Track Positions, as these are generic, which is my original question for the release: http://www.discogs.com/Various-Trance-Europe-Express-Volume-4/release/1427319 using:

one 1 - Deadstock Octarine
one 2 - Fluke Synth Bit
...etc

Or do you think Index Tracks can be used instead?

rassel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

Yep, ok so far, but could we nail this down in the RSG somehow?

With the todays wording RSG "More creative track positions such as "Up, Down" (for example) are acceptable if under fifteen characters long, and were listed like that on the release"
track numberings like
Foxy Side 1 - Depth Charge Vs Silver Fox
Foxy Side 2 - Silver Dub
Fluffy Side 1 - Under The Eye Of The Electric Storm

would be fine, but methinks this is really messy.

What about:
RSG "More creative track positions such as "Up, Down" (for example) are acceptable if under fife characters long and without spaces, and were listed like that on the release". Side identifier with more than five characters should be added using an index track, using the standard numbering pattern for the individual tracks.

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

I agree it may need a little updating. I does need to be made clear the difference between using track positions and side names as index tracks.

KrissO over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

I guess as long as the index track repeats what's already in the track position, it's not needed (as per the guideline).

schtel
I would add that to the list, and is not creative:

1, 2
One, Two
Side One, Side Two
This, That
This, Other

A lot of R&S vinyl has Silver Side, Black Side, and I would understand the objection for the use of Index Tracks. Maybe Index Tracks or numbering for 'creative track positioning' shouldn't be applied to labels that are consistent in their side names, as they are not being creative outside of their norm?

This side and that side however do not directly repeat the track positions in that way. Same with logo side and info side as well as

nik
I think that we shouldn't be too restrictive... surely listing something as:

This Side
A1
A2

That Side
B1
B2

is nice and clear? What would be the objection to having it listed as that?

I partly agree with this. "Logo Side" and "Info Side" / "Silver Side" and "Black Side" etc should be treated the same way.

But what about for releases with only one track per side? Obviously it would stupid to use index tracks with side identifiers such as above.
So in those cases we either keep A1 / B1 etc alone... or we replace them with "this" and "that".
Both are very common, it's only that I don't find the latter very consistent.
If this is supposed to be regulated by how many tracks on each side / discs in total a record has... the side identifiers (this, that etc) will sometimes be in the index and sometimes the track position.

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post schtel edited over 13 years ago

KrissO
the side identifiers (this, that etc) will sometimes be in the index and sometimes the track position.

Yes, and I think it's needed to have a rule which can be applied to decide which method to use. One of the problems being that A1 is actually a mixture of side identifier and track position. Yes?

A1 - TrackName
B1 - TrackName

...same as

X1 - TrackName
Y1 - TrackName

...same as

one 1 - TrackName
two 1 - TrackName

...same as

This 1 - TrackName
That 1 - TrackName

...what rule can be applied to prevent the side indicators being used for track positions and turn this into

This
A1 - TrackName
That
B1 - TrackName

Maybe it could simply be "Creative positioning should only use the actual track numbers given on the release, do not use side indicators for part of the track positioning, but use Index Tracks instead."

KrissO
But what about for releases with only one track per side? Obviously it would stupid to use index tracks with side identifiers such as above.

Funny, because I just remebered something I spotted a few weeks ago.
http://www.discogs.com/White-Light-Circus-Break-The-Circuit/release/1538814

Tracklisting:
+ Break The Circuit (5:00)
- Up To Rot (5:47)

Submitter indicated "Sides are mentioned on sleeve and labels as + and -. A or B are not mentioned anywhere."

...just to add to the potpourri of track positions. :)

rassel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

schtel
...what rule can be applied to prevent the side indicators being used for track positions and turn this into

This
A1 - TrackName
That
B1 - TrackName

If we say, that A1, A2... B1, B2 is the standard numbering pattern for media with multiple sides, then it will be quite obvious, that you may always use this, even if the sides are named like "+" and "-".
Many records have side identifier as 1 and 2, but I can't remember anybody adding
11
12
..
21
22

So even if we have a different side identifier, we should go with the standard numbering A1, A2, if we add the side identifier as index track on top of the tracklisting.

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

ok, then what rule can prevent this:

one 1 - TrackName
two 1 - TrackName

but can allow this:

+ Break The Circuit (5:00)
- Up To Rot (5:47)

...both are using side identifier as track position.

rassel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

schtel
ok, then what rule can prevent this:

one 1 - TrackName
two 1 - TrackName

Would
one - TrackName
two - TrackName

be fine if there's only one track per side?

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

Yes, I think it would be fine for 'one track per side' releases, but not for, my original query:

one 1 - Deadstock Octarine
one 2 - Fluke Synth Bit
one 3 - Bytesize Nuns Codpiece (Trouser Torpedo Mix)
two 1 - Vulva Haunted House
two 2 - Rue East Viper
two 3 - Solcyc Ky9
three 1 - LFO Helen
three 2 - Coldcut Nominal Aphasia
three 3 - DJ Crystl Crystlized
four 1 - Rootless Return To Savannah
four 2 - Chemical Brothers, The Life Is Sweet (Delik 1)

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

^ purely on the basis of looking naff! :)

rassel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post rassel edited over 13 years ago

Ok, so what about:

"More creative track positions such as "Up, Down" (for example) are acceptable if under fiteen characters long,

there's just one track per side

, and were listed like that on the release". If there are multiple tracks per side, use the standard A1, A2...B1, B2... pattern to denote the individual tracks, any additional side identifier as (This Side) must be added as an index track on top of the tracklisting."

This means:

+ - ThisTrack
- - OtherTrack

would be fine

Side +
A1 - ThisTrack
A2 - SecondTrack
Side -
B1 - NextTrack
B2 - Last Track

would be the rule.
Looks nice and is easy to handle.

EDIT: Typo

KrissO over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

I really like that one rassel, good work.

schtel
Yes, I think it would be fine for 'one track per side' releases, but not for, my original query:

So if we follow rassel's proposal here, we would use standard track positions for your query.

But I think we have concluded that side identifers as "Side One" are not qualified as an index track, correct?

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

^ Yeah, 4.2 Index tracks should not be used for denoting generic side, track position, or separate media data (for example, 'Side A', 'CD1' etc), track numbering is used for this.

btw, I think someone is reading this thread out of context: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1574982#latest :D

rassel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

^Nothing is written in the stones. We just need to add something like "Except Position.

schtel over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

nik , are you able to make use of our ramblings here?

nik over 13 years ago

This post is hidden because you reported it for abuse. Show this post

KrissO
But what about for releases with only one track per side? Obviously it would stupid to use index tracks with side identifiers such as above.

I don't think there is a big problem with that, I am not sure what the objection would be to that, so:

rassel
"More creative track positions such as "Up, Down" (for example) are acceptable if under fiteen characters long, there's just one track per side, and were listed like that on the release". If there are multiple tracks per side, use the standard A1, A2...B1, B2... pattern to denote the individual tracks, any additional side identifier as (This Side) must be added as an index track on top of the tracklisting."

I feel that is getting a bit complicated, how about the following adjustments to that section of the guidelines:

http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Position

Position

Some labels use lowercase letters, or list the track position in some other way (calling them X and Y, for example); this is fine. Submit in a way that is consistent with the label's practice. Keep in mind that the aim is that the user be able to easily match what the release reads with what Discogs reads.

For the sake of clarity, please use A, B etc for side identification, in place of 1, 2, One, Two, or Side One, Side Two.

Please use index tracks for tiles given to release sides or different media.

Please avoid the use of unnecessary format type prefixes and suffixes - for example;

* Prefixing "CD1." in front of a release that only contains one CD
* Prefixing with zeros or punctuation
* Suffixing with punctuation

schtel
nik, are you able to make use of our ramblings here?

I have listed the discussion at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Discogs_Guideline_Review_2009#11._Tracklisting_.28inc_all_tracklisting_field_rules.29 so it doesn't get 'lost', but I am not sure we are ready to change it over yet.

We Are Number One All Individual Tracks

Source: https://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/183428

Share :