As long as there are yes and no votes it will go the length of the voting cycle.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Cooper Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:20 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Billboard's "top whatever" On 7/25/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26/07/06, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I start this thread because of (1) and to a related thread on the > > user's list. I started it here because I think this is a guideline > > issue and we need to discuss as such. I encountered similar > > situations before. > > > > (1) http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5258089 > > > > The current guidelines say rather flatly that homebrews are > > discouraged. I think we should at least change that formula to an > > explicitly more flexible version. Perhaps even add an "internet > > bootleg release" rule, separately. > > > > I stated this in a (less organized) note on the edit above: homebrews > > and most torrents are random collections of songs of no musical > > interest except to a very small number of people, and for a short > > time. > > > > But that doesn't mean all home-burnt CDs and music .torrents are > > uninteresting for MB. We do keep in the database demo tapes that were > > released by some obscure band thirty years ago, when they were even > > more obscure, in 200 copies, on tapes, recorded in their basements. > > And we (at least I) care for them and consider them important (or at > > least interesting) pieces of discographic history. > > > > How can we then look at a collection of all the songs in one of > > Billboard's (*) tops and dismiss it as a "homebrew" just because it > > was not released on a physical bootleg CD from Russia(**), but > > through a torrent? I have seen almost-one-year-old torrents of such > > collections that still had 500+ downloaders. Not to mention that it > > is, in fact, a collection of the best-sold music of the times, which > > is not a very arbitrary criterion. > > but where's the line between arbitrary and non-arbitrary? where's the > line between popular and non-popular (and how do you really measure > that on the internet anyway? torrents are the only method of > distribution, and aren't centralised anyway)? surely any criteria is > worthy of indexing if it's popular, and if, say, one were to compile a > torrent of the top 100 of 1978 in iceland it would be as non-arbitrary > as the case above. > > IMO you can't make rules about this sort of thing, so it's best to say > "everything goes" (freedb...) or "only these concrete cases" (current > system). > > > Such a collection is, I insist, worthy of MusicBrainz, both as a > > tagging database and as a discographic database. (In fact, I'd even > > agree with adding at least some of Billboard's tops even if there was > > not, in fact, a torrent containing the songs.) > > you'd index a criteria of music, despite this not neccesarily being > released in any form?! It's released in list form. :) I wonder if we could suspend the edit in question (http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5258089) so as to not waste the time of haeretik, who added the release. Can we all change to Abstain until this discussion is completed? -- -Aaron _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
