LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2016

ARSCLIST January 2016

Subject:

Re: A case in point why CDText should have been used for metadata from Day 1

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:21:38 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

The more we talk about this, the less I'm sure CDText is even worth worrying about at this 
end-of-life stage of the CD. Screw it, the horse is already out of the barn and over the hills.

The better solution would be if one of the metadata generators, for instance the for-profit 
GraceNote, would ally with some sort of standards group and the music companies and sort this out. 
What's in it for them is to become the defacto metadata source, so any sort of program collecting 
this Official metadata would need to source it from them and pay their license fee. There could also 
be a mechanism where an ad window would be in the data-collection software, put their by the 
Official metadata provider and sold by them for a profit. I'd be OK with any of that as long as the 
ads or license fees got me uniform, consistent, and always correct metadata. And this metadata 
should be the source for all non-physical formats, so a HDTracks FLAC version has exactly the same 
song titles, artist name, album name, etc as the iTunes AAC version as the Amazon MP3 downloads 
version. And, this kind of data should be consistent no matter what remaster version it is. In other 
words, Erroll Garner's Concert by the Sea should have the same artist name and album title whether 
it's a library record of the LP, it's a rip of the 1980s Columbia CD or it's the original-sequence 
reissue CD just out. The Complete Concert By The Sea is a different title because it's a different 
album (different sequence, more songs, etc). The different reissues can be differentiated in the 
Comments field or in various other technical-information fields that usually don't even get filled 
by the robot-metadata sources.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Donahue" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A case in point why CDText should have been used for metadata from Day 1


It's actually much more complicated than just copy and pasting. Anything
generated by any Microsoft product (Word, excel, etc...) uses characters
that are not allowed in the CD+Text character set (Latin-1). Characters "",
 -, ..., ', and many others come up as either the wrong character or as a
?. I've spent the last day removing all these things from the series of
master I'm making as I write this. And this is from a seasoned record
company professional. The problem is that some software passes along and
reads the text correctly while standard CD Players  (Like the one in Tom's
car...) and other software that are letter compliant with CD+Text show the
error. If you copy things out of Word documents or from Outlook emails
you've probably done this. It's the same reason that Emails show up with
weird characters that you know the person didn't write or strange
formatting.
I use a site that converts all the crappy Windows-1252 text encoding to
regular Latin-1. http://www.articleformatter.com/
All the best,
-mark
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Lou Judson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Sending masters for replication as DDP files entails the same typo risk!
> That’s why I always insist on mastering clients sending me the exact
> information they want, and copy and paste it and triple-check it.
>
> The last thing I want is to have a produciton run defective by my hand! I
> may not have to pay for a new run, but I’d lose the client for sure.
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1601&L=ARSCLIST&D=0&O=D&P=73079
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-49
60843
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5JNLLGTHMGGHNENBHXIMR24KBZWL6B3R
<urn:uuid:247f8bac-e9d1-43ad-bacd-52acb7939409>
2022-12-08T15:36:19Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:CTOO3ZEQQZ5QBTLYLDMGDBKHH4BWXVUF
<urn:uuid:ea42b2d1-f2b2-4d8b-bb07-fc18942c207b>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1601&L=ARSCLIST&D=0&O=D&P=73079
response
<urn:uuid:f64b82a7-8710-4ec1-b107-4215563dcd6d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-70
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/