2007/12/1, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > While recognizing the points in A and in B, I think both miss a few > points... > > In either A or B, you also assume someone is setting all the possible ARs. > While some of us are really this obsessive (and I admit to being one such), > most ARs I see only have a few done. So the same track on six releases > might have 3 with no ARs, one with a producer AR, one with some performer > ARs, and one with some more (and partially overlapping) performer and mixer > ARs.
I'm obviously speaking about the "obsessive-d" artists, on which a given editor works out all ARs and tidy everything. > > B also assumes that any given track has the "earliest release of" AR created > to point it back to the earlier track. We also know this isn't really the > case for 99.9999% (perhaps higher) of the database. > Again, I'm clearly speaking about the 0.0001% (your estimate) where every track of the artist is tracked down to its earliest point/version. > A has the negative of error-creep. It also has the advantage of "multiple > eyes on multiple places". Fair enough. Either way, I'm not going to ask casual editors to actually spend five months studying an artist discography before adding what they think fits > The earliest release's liner may give very few > credits, while later releases include more info Yes, definitely. And such info gets attached to the earliest release of the track. > - this I find to often be > the case with, for example, classical and soundtracks (the latter > especially), where the initial release gives no performer info, while later > releases, positively identified as being the exact same release, give at > least some credits as to performers, rather than just basic composer info. > So, even if the info isn't fully present, between different releases of the > exact same track, we may gain better info on that track. Errrr... I'm definitely *not* saying "use only the info from the earliest physical release", but "use every info you got, and add it to the earliest entry in the db" > > B has negatives too. First, it does assume that the earliest track AR is > pointed to. Again, I'm speaking only about these cases. > Second, as hinted at in Frederic's note, it assumes we really > do have the earliest release that all the ARs are being applied to. If a > new earliest release is later found, a strict interpretation of B would mean > our then removing a bunch of perfectly good ARs, only to reapply them to the > (now) earliest track instance. Yes, in this case, a number of ARs need to be changed. Which is outweighted by the number of ARs that needs to be changed in plan A for *any credit change*. > > Personally, I would prefer not to codify any of this. I would prefer to > instead spend some time discussing quite which release level ARs do or don't > inherit, as well as working to fill in the holes in our current AR system > (missing "libretto" AR for track-artist, missing "is the same track as" > track-track AR, etc). I'd also prefer to spend some time discussing quite > what we define as being "the same track". To me, the same track being reissued (identical) in another release. What's blury there? > > I'd prefer this, because hopefully soon, we will have "track masters" in the > system. At that point, both A and B become irrelevant, as they as > essentially what is solved by track masters. However, at that same point, > we will have to have the AR inheritance worked out, so we know what ARs > should or should not inherit from releases to tracks to track masters, as > well as from tracks to track masters. We also will have to have a > definition of just what is "the same track" so we can know what tracks to > merge together to create track masters (where the master has more than just > a single instance). Again, I don't see what you find blury in the "same track" definition: it's straightforward IMHO. Anything that is not the same track (edited, remixed, etc), is not the same track :-) > > At this later track master point, the only part of A or B I see which will > really have potential to cause headaches is where track 1 has an AR for one > person, and track 2 has the same AR for a different person. But this too we > can handle - it may be that both are correct, and each track only was half > attributed, or it may be that one track had an incorrect AR. But I see this > as a positive benefit of approach A - redundant info later being > cross-checked to later find potential errors in the redundancy. > So, if you're suggesting no rule/resolution, and wait for track masters, you're suggesting that (in the interim) everybody chooses what please him most on the artists he is working on. I guess that means now you are gonna change that no vote on my edits, right? :D Cheers. - Olivier _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
