Hi all, Ok, so let me start by saying that the title isn't serious. There are some CSG issues that would probably benefit from some documented clarification, but...
I have just spent a couple of hours reading through a pile of this stuff and I now have a headache. So, with the thought that there might be others out there who are feeling similarly overwhelmed, I thought I'd write something a bit more general from the other side of the argument. As far as I have been able to tell MB is not some kind of "encyclopaedia of music" and efforts to make it so, especially in the realm of classical music, are questionable. It seems more that MB is an "encyclopaedia of _recorded_ music" and there's a big difference between the two. Suppose I buy a classical CD and track one appears as Piano Concerto in D, Op. 1: I. Andante but then I find on MB that it's listed as Concerto for Piano in D major, Op. 1: I. Andante cantabile then don't I have a right to be surprised and perhaps even a little unhappy? All this business with "master lists" and so on will create a database that's more disparate from reality than I think is sensible. Yes, a _little_ standardisation can be useful, but I feel that at the moment there's far too much of a push towards making things more fantastical than they have a right to be. Users should be able to get information about what actually exists rather than what some of us think the record labels ought to have done. So, rather than worrying about, for example, "Should we write X or Y?" do we have it clear why we want to be so strict that we can't live with both X and Y in the database? and why having so many track/release titles that aren't the ones in the booklet or on the cover is such a good thing? Don (cadalach) _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
