[x] A new precedent

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=15126

This entry backs up a contention of mine that when documenting a single (as opposed to LP) we document both sides.

There are lots of singles out there where both A and B sides are depicted on the cover. I reckon we ought to go back and revisit them and add the B-side.

Feel free to argue ...

I'm not against your view per se. However, I would have to say that the release you are citing, from the cover alone, is singularly unclear as to which track, if any, has precedence over the others. Where that's the case, a precedent may have been set but where there is clearly an 'A' and 'B' I think normal protocol would remain to list only the 'A'. I might counter-argue that perhaps this is actually a s/t release with the constituent songs listed?

We re-thought that entry and opted for the title of the first track as the name of the release.

When we don't know for sure what the title of a release is, we turn to the cover art. Obviously, it's not the case that every word on the cover of a release qualifies as part of the title--imagine the field day we could have with [bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=482

Ideally there's going to be something that tips us off that one word is the title and the rest is surplus text. [bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=8086 is an example of a title being distinguished by color and size.

For [www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=15126 and similar-looking releases, we're going to interpret the title as the first song listed on the cover (starting first from left to right, and second from top to bottom) because that song is set off by position, if nothing else.

Obviously, as in other cases, we should overrule the cover art if further convincing evidence supports a different conclusion.

If nothing is on the cover and we have no other information, we'll go with s/t.